# Urban County Council Meeting - September 18, 2008 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Council · September 18, 2008 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/600 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/600?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2008-09-18 - **Body**: Council - **Last revised**: June 17, 2026 - **Length**: 25,791 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government Council met at 7:00 PM in Lexington, Kentucky, with Mayor Jim Newberry presiding. The meeting covered 2 agenda items, both of which were approved: an ordinance accepting the bid of Herrick Company, Inc., and a resolution directing the preparation of a Development Plan for the Phoenix Park/Courthouse Development Area. Over the course of the meeting, the Council took 3 votes and heard 3 public comments. No presentations were noted in the meeting record. ## Attendance All 16 members were present at the January 11, 2024 Council meeting. No members were absent or late. **Present:** - Jim Newberry - Blevins - Blues - Crosbie - DeCamp - Ellinger - Gorton - Gray - Henson - James - Lane - McChord - Myers - Stevens - Stinnett - Beard ## Votes and Decisions Three votes were taken during the January 11, 2024 Council meeting. - **Remove Resolution 38 from the Docket** [timestamp: 0:02]: Councilmember Ellinger moved to remove resolution number 38 from the docket. The motion passed by voice vote. - **Approve Ordinances Entitled to Second Reading** [timestamp: 0:55]: Councilmember Stevens moved, seconded by Councilmember Beard, to approve ordinances entitled to second reading. The motion passed 15–0 on a roll call vote. Voting in favor: Blevins, Blues, Crosbie, DeCamp, Ellinger, Gorton, Gray, Henson, James, Lane, McChord, Myers, Stevens, Stinnett, and Beard. No members voted against. - **Resolution 25 – Phoenix Park/Courthouse Development Area** [timestamp: 2:07]: Councilmember Ellinger moved, seconded by Councilmember Gorton, to adopt Resolution 25, directing the preparation of a Development Plan for the Phoenix Park/Courthouse Development Area. The motion passed 10–5 on a roll call vote. Voting in favor: Crosbie, DeCamp, Ellinger, Henson, James, Lane, McChord, Myers, Stevens, and Beard. Voting against: Blevins, Blues, Gorton, and Gray. *Note: The vote totals as recorded indicate 10 ayes and 5 nays, though only four members are listed in the nay column.* ## Budget and Financial Actions The Council approved several contracts covering infrastructure, transportation, and utility improvements during the January 11, 2024 meeting. - **Chlorination Equipment Replacement ($248,500):** The Council authorized a contract with Herrick Company, Inc. for the replacement of chlorination equipment at the Town Branch Waste Water Treatment Plant. The project addresses critical utility infrastructure at the facility. - **Traffic Signal Rebuild on Nicholasville Road ($710,170):** A contract was approved with Arrow Electric Company, Inc. for traffic signal rebuilding and signalization work along a portion of Nicholasville Road. This represents the largest single contract approved at the meeting and is directed at improving traffic management infrastructure along the corridor. - **Downtown Sidewalk and Streetscape Design ($1,408,100):** Under Resolution No. 579-2007, the Council approved a contract with Kinzelman Kline Gossman, LLC for the design of sidewalks and streetscape improvements in the downtown area. This contract covers design services for pedestrian infrastructure enhancements in the city's core. In total, the three contracts approved at this meeting represent approximately **$2,366,770** in committed expenditures across water treatment, transportation, and urban design projects. ## Public Comment Three residents addressed the Council during the public comment period, with remarks focused primarily on the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) resolution under consideration. - **Preston Pinely** [timestamp: 1:38:36] spoke in opposition to the TIF resolution, raising concerns about what he described as a lack of a planning process and a murky understanding of the resolution's implications. His comments suggested that the Council and community had not yet developed sufficient clarity around the proposal before moving forward. - **Joe Graves** [timestamp: 1:40:48] urged caution on the TIF resolution, citing the current national economic situation as a reason to proceed carefully. Mr. Graves recommended that the Council commission independent market research before taking further action, indicating that outside analysis could provide a more objective basis for the decision. - **Timothy Price** [timestamp: 1:50:40] offered a contrasting perspective, speaking in support of both the CenterPoint project and the associated TIF. Mr. Price emphasized the benefits he anticipated from courthouse improvements and parking structures connected to the project. The public comment period reflected a divided community response, with two speakers calling for greater deliberation or opposition to the TIF resolution and one speaker voicing clear support for moving ahead with the CenterPoint development. ## Contested Items - **Resolution 25 – Development Plan for Phoenix Park/Courthouse:** This item produced the most significant division of the meeting, passing on a **10-5 vote**. The split indicates a notable minority of council members had reservations about the proposed development plan for the Phoenix Park/Courthouse area. The structured data does not specify the individual positions of members on either side of the vote or the precise nature of the objections raised, but the margin — five dissenting votes out of fifteen — reflects a meaningful lack of consensus on the plan's direction. The resolution ultimately passed in favor of moving the development plan forward. ## Ordinance accepting the bid of Herrick Company, Inc. [timestamp: 55:21] The Council considered an ordinance to accept the bid of Herrick Company, Inc. for chlorination equipment replacement at the Town Branch Waste Water Treatment Plant. Stevens was the key speaker on this agenda item. The ordinance was approved by the Council. *Note: The available record for this agenda item is limited. Specific details regarding the bid amount, the discussion, any concerns raised, or the vote tally are not available in the provided data.* ## Resolution directing the preparation of a Development Plan for the Phoenix Park/Courthouse Development Area [timestamp: 2:07:03] The Council took up Agenda Item 25, a resolution directing the preparation of a development plan for the Phoenix Park/Courthouse Development Area. The resolution also incorporated recommendations from the TIF (Tax Increment Financing) delegation as part of its scope. Key speakers on this item were **Ellinger** and **Gorton**. The resolution was presented as a procedural step to formally initiate the planning process for the Phoenix Park/Courthouse area, directing staff to move forward with preparing the development plan. The Council approved the resolution. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Remove resolution number 38 from the docket - **Motion** — passed (15-0): Approve ordinances entitled to second reading - **Resolution 25** — passed (10-5): Directing the preparation of a Development Plan for the Phoenix Park/Courthouse Development Area --- ## Full transcript Let's go ahead and call the meeting to order, if we could. Madam Clerk, if you'll call the roll. Mr. Blevins. Here. Mr. Bluez. Here. Ms. Crosby. Here. Mr. DeCamp. Here. Mr. Ellinger. Here. Ms. Gordon. Here. Mr. Gray. Here. Ms. Henson. Here. Ms. James. Here. Mr. Lane. Here. Mr. McCord. Here. Mr. Myers. Here. Dr. Stephens. Present. Mr. Stennett. Here. And Mr. Beard. Present. Thank you. Thank you. We have a quorum. It's my pleasure to welcome to the podium, Jon and Kathryn Hines, who are missionaries of Downtown Pulse, which, uh, focuses on our downtown area. Welcome. Thank you. Lord God, we call upon your name. We ask that you fill this place with your presence. We ask that you fill this place with your wisdom, and you guide us as we seek the best for our city. Lord, I pray for our mayor and our council people. We just pray, Lord, that you, uh, guide each one of them. We pray that you guide our city, that it may reflect the things that you desire. And Lord, I pray for all of those in our city, um, who are not in this room tonight. I pray that this meeting, um, is an honorable representation of their interests, and I pray that it is honorable to you, Lord. Uh, I pray for peace and justice to fill your city, and I ask all of these in your name. Amen. Amen. Thank you. We're now ready for the ordinances entitled to second reading, so- Mayor, before we go, can I, um, I'd like to remove something from the docket, please. All right. Um, on first resolutions number 38, uh, statutorily appears that the negotiations, the collective bargaining negotia- the negotiations shall be in the hands of the mayor and the FOP. The council's not involved in the negotiates, therefore, I believe it's not appropriate for the council to be voting on this resolution. I move to re- I move to remove resolution number 38 from the docket, and therefore let you go ahead and sign the agreement. Second. Have a motion and a second to remove item 38 from the docket. Um, I'd like for Commissioner Askew to kind of step to the podium to try to, I hope, address the, uh, position of the Department of Law. What I tried to communicate to the council on Tuesday was, I think this is a good contract. I was prepared to sign it last week. Anticipated getting approval to sign it. The Department of Law raised a question relative to whether or not the council had a role to play here, and that's what precipitated our conversation on Tuesday. As I said then, and I'll say again, um, if the council wishes to give me the, uh, discretion to sign an agreement on behalf of Urban County Government and the authority to do so, I'm perfectly willing to sign it tonight. If the council prefers to be involved in some fashion or another, you can either deal with it tonight or give it first reading tonight or give it first reading six months from now, whatever your preference may be about that. But, um, my understanding from the Department of Law has been that I either need, um, uh, the council to approve the agreement or to authorize me to execute it on behalf of LFUCG. Either way is, is fine by me. Councilman- um, Commissioner Askew? Uh, yes sir, that's correct. Um, I wanna address a couple of things though that were said the other night, and again, in a, a letter that I, I apologize, I've been out of town all day and I don't know what time I see this letter, but something was suggested about going into closed session to discuss contract negotiations, and I don't believe that that's appropriate for a closed session. Um, second, I think, uh, and I don't believe Mr. Allen is here, I believe Mr. Sweeney's here, however, and, uh, I believe he will tell you that there are, as in Louisville, there are agreements that are signed at the commencement of negotiations, which require all folks involved in the negotiations to maintain confidentiality. And then at the time that the agreement is negotiated by the negotiators, it then goes to the union to vote up or down, and in Louisville, again, it is voted up or down by the council. So, that's just a little update on some of the things. And I noticed that somebody from the firefighters submitted something today, and it cites a statute which you will note is very similar. There's also a statute dealing with police in 67C, which is very similar to this as well. And as I indicated, our staff contacted Louisville to see how the process worked there, and the way it works there is as we are proposing here, so, um, that's it. So I- Happy to answer any questions. Councilmember Stevens. Commissioner, if, uh, this motion that was made by Mr. Ellinger passes, uh, the mayor then can legally sign that thing as soon as the motion passes? I apologize, Dr. Stephens, I did not hear the motion. The motion is to take off the docket, the resolution first reading to approve the, uh, agreement reached through the collective bargaining with the police. Well, I believe the council needs to ratify the agreement. Now, you don't have to do it tonight, as we said last week. You can do it- Yes, I understand your position, but I... my question was- Is it legal for the mayor to sign that agreement tonight, for example, if... In the absence of council approval? No, if the council votes to take it off the docket. No, I don't believe it is, because what's on the docket is authorizing the mayor to sign it. But, you don't... Another option would be, and I think it was Council Member DeCamp, I believe, suggested that if what you would like to do is clarify this by saying that in collective bargaining situations that the mayor is authorized to sign agreements, I think you could do that without being agreement-specific. Somebody suggested that. I can't remember who. Council Member DeCamp is shaking his head no, so I don't know. Council Member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. I have a question. Um, I'm one of those people that Tom Blues, I think, referred to as one of the mature council members who's been around a while. And, um, this is the second round of police and fire negotiations. Right. And all of those were signed by the mayor, the sitting mayor. The council did not approve them. That's correct. The community corrections agreements were signed in 2007 by the mayor, and to my recollection, the council did not approve those. I believe that is correct. I would like to know what has changed that's, that is, that is prompting you to say that we need to approve this agreement- Well- ... or give authorization. ... I don't know that I can make it any clearer than I did last time, Council Member Gordon, in that the law department opinion has changed. And I do believe that the, I do believe that the better course is similar to what is done in Louisville, where the council is involved because it involves the appropriation of money. But the council does not... Again, if the council chooses not to exercise any legislative authority that it may have under that statute, it may do so. Now, I will grant you, I believe that the statute, as I told you last time, could be clearer. I don't think it's, uh, I don't think it's perfectly clear one way or the other, and I think the position taken previously... And some of you that were involved, I think something came up four years ago or five years ago, whenever... Well, three or four years ago, when the last, the very first negotiations were going on. I've been advised by some folks that were involved with that, that council raised some questions then about being involved in negotiations, and I think were advised that that was not a good idea, and that the statute was, um, you know, authorized the mayor to go ahead and conduct those negotiations. Well, we were advised, if I recall correctly, we were advised that we had to be at arm's length, and we were not permitted to know what the negotiations were. And, um, y- you know, I, I have just heard you say that it could be interpreted in different ways, and it's unclear. Yes, yes. So, I, so I'm not comfortable, given that information, voting to support the collective bargaining agreement, because I wasn't in those negotiations. I don't know what it took to get to where you all got with the negotiations, and I'm very trustful that those people who negotiated and who were on the team negotiated for the best interests of everyone. So I think, at this point, I, I would certainly support the motion, and I think the council... You know, as I said in my letter to council members, and, and you did receive a copy of it, it's just a rubber stamp if, if we choose to, um, support this. It is if you don't look at the agreement, but I don't think anybody's suggesting that you not. Well- I think what you're being asked to do is approve the agreement upon proper consideration. Now, how much time you feel you need to study it is up to you. Well, it's a lengthy agreement, and I think many times, the heart of the agreement is in the discussions. Just like the work that we do as a council, the heart of the end agreement is what you go through in the discussions, and we are not privy to what happened there. So, simply my opinion. I would just ask if, if either as a part of this motion or as a subsequent resolution, if, if this is taken off the docket, that you go ahead and explicitly authorize me, on behalf of Urban County government, to sign the document or to use my discretion and determine whether or not it's in the best interest of Urban County government, or however you wanna do it, because, uh, I'd like to go ahead and get on with it for the benefit of, of the, the police officers. Council Member Blevins. I'm sorry. Uh, I didn't see Council Member Beard on the list here. Let's go ahead and just use the, uh, electronic list here. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, having been the one that, uh, made the motion at work session, uh, my concern at that point was that... The agreement had been delivered to me while I sat here at work session. And, um, it is not something you can absorb with any type of intelligence, uh, in two days. You're not doing due justice to it. Um, and so that's why I wanted, uh, a, a little bit more time. Um, obviously, uh, if, uh, the motion w- were to pass, my motion would, were to pass tonight, and, um, there was no second reading this evening, then we would have, uh, some time to be able to digest everything that's in there. If for no other reason than, um, if we're given this responsibility, we, we kinda have to, uh, have our feet on the ground about, uh, all, all the various and sundry issues, uh. And, and some of them are something that I, I never dreamed would have, uh, come up to begin with. But, uh, they did, and, uh, and that's fine. But, uh, just, uh, isn't exactly what I would have thought some of the topics might have been. Um, what you found in KRS as to, um, whether this should be approved by council or not, uh, was not stipulated clearly. Is that correct? That is, but you're, you're advising this as, as an abundance of caution, maybe? Well, the charter's pretty explicit that it is the council that has the legislative power, and is the body that appropriates money. So I think the council has a role to play in any action in which LFUCG is expending money. Um, now, the state legislature can overrule the statute through the passage of a statute, overrule the charter or an ordinance through the passage of a, a statute. The statute, I believe, was adopted in 2004. And you will note that the language is remarkably similar, almost the same to 67C, which is the Consolidated Local Government statute under which police contracts are negotiated, and KRS 345, under which fire contracts are negotiated in Louisville. So you've got the same statutory language that says that you're going to have essentially, um, labor representatives, police representatives on one hand and negotiators on behalf of the city on the other. And that there's a vote of the membership on the agreement, and then the agreement becomes effective upon the signature of the mayor or the mayor's designee. Now I'm going off the top of my head, but that's essentially it. And then it goes on to say that this is the exclusive method by which these contracts are entered into. So, um, does that mean that the mayor appropriates money without legislative approval? Good question. As I posed the question the other night, if we had collective bargaining for all civil service employees, Council Member Beard, all you would do in the appropriation of money would be to buy equipment, um, pay for upkeep of buildings and things like that because all salary and benefits would be matters left entirely to the discretion of the mayor. Not all. O- Ours wouldn't. Nobody would wanna turn us loose with getting, getting up to market rate. Well, I think, uh, well, I think you understand what I'm saying, that you've got a significant part of the budget in public safety that what the statute, if, if it means that the mayor can make that decision on behalf of the council, the mayor or the chief executive is, in effect, tying the hands of the council with respect to appropriations. Well, they- Can the legislature make that happen? I think they can because I think the legislature gets to decide political subdivisions, what rights they have. What, what I hear, I think, is regardless of the amount of time that the council may have to make a decision, that the council really doesn't want to do that. They would rather that the mayor make that decision, or they involve, be involved in the negotiation of the agreement. Now, I haven't been involved in any of these negotiations, and I couldn't tell you everything that's in the agreements. But I think that the folks that are involved in these kinds of negotiations will tell you that it's very, very difficult to have the entire membership involved in the negotiation on behalf of a collective bargaining unit. And it would be very hard to have all the elective representatives involved. I mean, you're gonna have to have groups that are assigned that task to come back to their respective authorities and say, "This is the agreement. We think it's a good agreement." And I think in this case that, uh, the mayor's indicating that the negotiating team, in our case, and you've heard from several of 'em, believe that this is a good agreement and should be approved. Well, then the concept of binding future councils, which we all have, uh, lived by, doesn't really apply in this case. Is that correct? Well, that's a good question, and one that I posed to one of our staff members to find out exactly how the City of Louisville dealt with that because they go through the process which we are now proposing that we follow here. And it is my understanding from our staff that have talked to the staff in Louisville, that the way that the agreement is viewed, is an agreement not between LFUCG and every public safety official officer, but an agreement between that body called the Collective Bargaining Unit in LFUCG. Which is to say that it doesn't say that you're going to have to have this many public safety officers, but what you are going to do is, public safety officers that are hired are going to be paid at a certain rate of pay in accordance with that schedule that's attached to the agreement. Now, that's how it is viewed there, and that's the only other legal s- S- so when we get to future councils, I, I, we would manipulate the numbers of, uh, uh, staff to make up for the dollars? No, I think in an agreement, and I don't believe there's anything in the statute that requires the agreement to be three years. In this case and in the prior cases, they have been three years. But you are still required to appropriate money, as you know, um, each year. W- we're actually three and a half months away from Future Council in this case, but right now. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, Council Member Blevins. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, first of all, I want to make clear there's two issues we're discussing here. One is the contract. We're not really talking about y- it yet. We're just talking about the procedure, whether the council does it or not. So I'd like to say for the record that my very cursory two days of review on this contract, it looks like a good contract. So let's put that over here for a second and talk about the procedure. At best, this state law is ambiguous. We have two different commissioners of law with two different opinions. I'm no lawyer, I admit that right now, but my own reading of the statute, I don. I don't get a sense either way either. So we have to rely on sort of tradition here and our best guess, my opinion. Further, if we are to vote tonight on this contract, it will set a precedent that has not yet been done. And I believe that will endanger existing contracts because wouldn't it mean that perha- for example, the one that Mayor Newberry signed with Corrections is now not proper since it was not properly voted on by council. That's a can of worms I don't want to open up. Third, I think the better course instead of us voting on something, since state law supersedes anything this council can do, is to clean this up at the state law level. And I see Kathy Stein in the audience. Let this be one of your first tasks. This is a little bit unusual. Sorry. Another... I'm sorry, Chuck. That was not intentional. Anyway, the better course is at the state law level. Another thing is I, I've, in my research the last few days, I'm reminded that there are federal laws that govern the negotiation phases of us- union contracts that may well affect our involvement, whether we can be involved or not involved. Commissioner Askew's made a case for us not being involved, which means, leads me to my last point, which is something everybody in this, in this room can relate to. It's the old responsibility versus authority problem. If you've ever had a job where you've had the responsibility to complete a task, but not the authority to get it done, you know how frustrating that can be. Well, here we sit as a council with absolutely all the responsibility if we vote on this tonight, but none of the authority to negotiate the contract. None of us has been involved in negotiations. We're facing a point now where there's a number of people in the room who'd like to see this contract go ahead and go in effect, understandably so. And so we're faced with nothing we can do to change or shape the contract. And, and more or less, I agree with Council Member Gordon, a rubber stamp vote. So I can't support this at this time. I do support the concept of cleaning this up one way or the other, but I, I don't think tonight is the night to do that. Thanks. Mayor, if I might, there is one other option that I don't know whether we talked about the last time, but there is always the option of trying to get an attorney general's opinion, uh, because we are dealing with state statutes here. Now, how quickly we might get an opinion, uh, I'm not really sure, but I think it's worth exploring. But ideally, having something that's pretty clear legislatively would be the best way for this to be resolved. Representative Stein and Council Member Ellinger. Council Member Hinson? Thank you, Mayor. I, um, I've, although I, I really, I respect our law department's opinion greatly, but I feel like these negotiations been going on since January. It is very unfair to these officers that work very hard to delay this contract. Um, and when they began the cr- the process, it was with the understanding that the process would remain the same. And now it, it's like a wrench has been thrown in it, which I feel is very unfair. And we should follow the same process that has been followed in the past until 2011. If we want to change it before then, when they're up for renegotiation, then we should take a look at it at that time. I feel like it should have been brought before the council during the budget process if we were going to have a say in, um, this negotiation. So just my thoughts. Thanks. Council Member Stevens. Uh, I think if the council would express a positive intent to do this rather than just taking it off the docket, it might be a little clearer for... ... everybody concerned and also indicate what our intent is. So, I would propose a substitute resolution for number 38 rather than just the motion to take it off. And the substitute resolution would read, "That the Council of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County government defers approval of the police collective bargaining agreement and ensuing contract effective July 1, 2008 to the mayor for the mayoral approval and signature." That would replace number 38 if approved, and when, uh, I think allows us to do a second reading tonight and get this matter cleared up. Is there a second to that motion to amend? Second. Have a second by Council Member DeCam. Okay, the discussions now on the, uh, substitute resolution from Council Member Stevens. It'll- That's it. All right, Council Member Meyers? Is it something for discussion? Yes. Okay. Commissioner Askew, could you come into my conference, please? Basically, now what we're debating, it sounds like is whether or not the mayor has the authority to sign this document if we pull it back off the docket. Is, is that the intent of your motion, is to give him that authority? Yes, that's what we're saying if we pass this resolution. Okay. Substantially- I don't... I... I'm sorry, Dr. Stevens. Okay, go ahead. That's what I was saying. I, I think, I think the concern, and I think it's a very legitimate concern, this idea of who ought to be involved in negotiations. At what stage should the council be involved in negotiations is a very legitimate question that needs to be discussed. Um, this issue about whether you can be in closed session to discuss negotiations, I seriously doubt that you can do that given the nature of this contract. Um, but- Commi- Commissioner, I- If you're concerned about not having been involved in the negotiations of this contract and not wanting to appear as a rubber stamp, it seems to me that what Dr. Stevens is proposing is you're authorizing the mayor to sign it, but you're not... I mean, I think it's pretty clear that you have not been involved in the negotiations and you're not expressing an opinion on the contract one way or the other, and it's clear that you're not pleased with the process, which I think is legitimate. All right, Commissioner. Sir. Are... Is it your legal opinion, you have said that you don't believe the mayor has the authority to sign this contract if we do not approve it or pass a subsequent motion similar to what Dr. Stevens just submitted or proposed. Is that correct? What I have said is, is that the statute that I cited in my memo in 67A outlines a procedure which seems to be at odds with the charter. Um, and I don't think it, it's clear because it does not expressly mention the council one way or the other. Now, if the statute were to say that the mayor could execute a, an agreement which effectively bound the council. I, I- ... uh, particularly in the appropriation of money without council approval, then it would be pretty clear. Okay. Now you've r- well, I'm not gonna get into that. You raised a second point when you talked about the dollar amount or the dollars, but y- yes or no, do you think the mayor has the authority to sign this contract if we don't approve it? No, I believe that the council should approve the contract and authorize him to sign it as you do all other contracts. Okay. Is it your opinion then that the contracts that the mayor has signed that are c- currently in effect that the, uh, council did not approve are null and void? No, I think that, I think that you... Well, first of all, you've got, you have appropriated the money and that seems to be the key provision because you have now appropriated money for two years on the corrections contract. On the contract here, it's my understanding that the money for the public safety budget for FY09 effective July 1 of this year does include sufficient amounts to cover everything that's in this contract. Now, I would have to defer to Commissioner Bennett on that, but I believe that to be the case. So then if that's the- If I'm just... Councilman Meyers, let me just say one other thing. Do I think that it necessarily is? No. Do I think that if the mayor signs this contract that it could be a challenge deemed to be valid? Yes, I think it could. What I'm saying is, I don't believe it's clear, but I think the better course, particularly whenever you're talking about the appropriation of money, I believe that's the province of the legislature, not the executive. Okay. Now, now that you've raised that point, because I didn't want to get into all that, but now that you've raised that point, it's my understanding, and I think you just described this, that when the council deliberated the budget, there was a placeholder dollar amount in the budget that covered the negotiations. If the mayor did not spend more than that, then what you're saying is not true. The mayor did not go outside of what the council approved. Therefore, we don't need to approve this contract because the mayor was within the restraints that the council placed on him when he set the budget and he made the negotiations. Council Member Meyers, I don't know exactly what was put in the budget, and I couldn't tell you- Well, I think you already said for yourself that the money was set aside and that... It's my understanding that that's the case, that you're not going to have to do a budget amendment. Right. On the effect... When this contract is effective, I do not believe you're going to have to do a budget amendment to appropriate additional money to pay for it. That's my understanding. And that's my understanding as well, which would mean then that the mayor would not be stepping outside of his boundaries if he signed this contract without our approval because the contract is within the boundaries of the budget that we approved. Well, there are other aspects to the contract besides just budget. Okay. So it's not just, it's not just money, although I believe that that's the area, frankly, that causes me more concern, in that the executive is, is essentially appropriating money without the council's approval. Okay. I think we just cleared that up, that he's not appropriating money, because we did approve it. But if I could ask Ms. Stein to come up. I... Uh, I should say Representative Stein, I'm sorry. Thank you, Mayor and Council. Yes, Mr.- It's my understand that you drafted the legislation that commissioner, um, asked you, cited. We worked... I worked with LRC and other individuals for this legislation in, in its current form, yes. Okay. A- and it seems to me that the question that we were debating on Tuesday, and the question that we're debating today is, or at least one that was asked is, was it the legislature's intent to give the mayor the authority to sign such collective bargaining agreements without approval of that agreement by the council? Well, my understanding is that management and, management and labor are the two parties here. And it is, it was our intent, I do believe, that management, um, in this legislative body is the executive. You all are the legislative branch, clearly. Um, but I would have to say that the, the comment that you made about your approval of the budget, uh, which covered this, would be, um, would give this mayor the ability to sign it without there being a constitutional challenge. Now, I don't want to be, um, someone who would, uh, uh, give my legal opinion here, but I, I am advising you that it was the intent when we designed this piece of legislation and passed it, um, that, that would be the way it is. That's the way collective bargaining works. Otherwise, you have something clearly different from collective bargaining. Okay. Thank you, Representative Stein. Thank you. Then I would say based on that, that I would not support a motion, a subsequent motion... Well, one, I would not support the substitute of this motion, and one, and secondly, I would not su- support a motion for the council to give the mayor the authority to sign the contract, because I believe that we've just heard that it was the legislature's intent to give the mayor that authority originally, and I don't think that we have to do that. So I'm gonna vote against this motion and any other motion that would suggest that we need to give the mayor the authority to do this. Thank you. Council Member Lane. Uh, thank you, Mayor. Uh, I'd first like to say that the issue before us tonight is not whether we support the, you know, the public safety segment of our government. I think, uh, we strongly support that. I think this is a procedural issue that is really in front of us. And, you know, I've thought about this intently and, and my thought is I was elected by the taxpayers and the citizens of Fayette County to represent them. And I, I agree that, uh, I don't wanna vote to authorize the mayor to sign tonight, because I haven't had a chance to review it. I haven't seen what the financial implications are over the next three years. And even though we may have, there might have been some money allowed in the budget for this year, we have not budgeted but for one year, and this is a three-year contract. Um, so I think that it's a tough question to look at. But I, I think that, uh, the key word here is transparency. And I think, uh, if we presented the information on the contract to the public, to the council, and we know what it's gonna cost for the next three years, that, that would serve the best interest of our community and our city government. Thank you. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. I understand what, what Dr. Stevens would like us to, to do here, which is to authorize the mayor to sign a contract, which I think there was a good argument for saying he already has that authorization, and he has that, that authority. We'd be put in a position here, I think, of, of authorizing a, a, a contract that we haven't read, we haven't studied, we haven't participated in. Uh, I think that, that we're, we're we're, we're in danger here of breaking with the precedent, which is arguably sound, and which at this point, we should, we should not do. At the same time, I think it's perfectly reasonable for us to look at this, at this whole question of the council's involv- involvement in, uh, in, in contract negotiations with fire, with police, with corrections. Um, and if we wanna change that precedent at some point in the future, when what we are doing and what our involvement is, is clear to all parties from day one, then I think we can do that. But I don't think that at this, at this stage of the process, this 11th hour, we should change the rules of the game. Thank you. Vice Mayor Gray. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I think several have... Um, my sentiments are, have been reflected by several who have, uh, spoken already. Um, particularly, uh, Council Member Blues just now. Um, but I, I do think that a lot of this has to do with expectations. And, and I think my sense is that, um, in, in a, in this, everyone has been well intended. Um, this is a, you know, commissioner of l- of law who's, uh, new to this administration. A mayor who's first, first time for this sort of n- It is a first, isn't it? Or corrections was a first? Okay, so second. So there was a, in my view, view, an honest, um, an honest reflection on the, an honest examination of the issue. Um, but I will in, I will support the, uh, removal on the basis that, uh, the, the administration has engaged this negotiation in good faith. But I also believe what Dr. Blues just had to say is something that we should do, and we should examine this and we should follow, um, the questions that, um, Commissioner Askew suggested as we go downstream, uh, and go forward. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member McCourt. Thank you, Mayor and just, just for my part, because I was not here on Tuesday, uh, and I was playing somewhat of catch-up and, and watching this tonight. Uh, as Council Member Bleven says, we have two things at work here. One, you have a, a real flaw in the process where you're, you're feeling, uh, very exposed, not to, to a decision that, uh, you, you are making on behalf of the citizens, uh, but on behalf of folks here who have worked extremely hard over the last number of months. Uh, and what I've heard from, from you all over the last few months is a tremendous sense of unease and uncertainty. And, uh, and having a contract really allays a lot of that fear. And what I would like to see done is for you all to move forward on a contract that I feel like you worked very hard for. And, uh, and, and it was hammered out in the best interest of, of the citizens of Fayette County. I believe, I agree with Council Member Myers and Representative Stein that, uh, that, that the mayor has the authority to do this. So I, I, I won't support Dr. Steven's motion just, uh, because I believe that the mayor already does, but I would support, uh, Council Member Ellinger taking it off and, and seeing this thing done, uh, as quickly as possible. So I just wanted to state for the record, uh, where I stand. Thank you, Mayor. Let me, uh, just raise the question, if you think I already have that authority, why not vote in favor of Council Member Stevens' resolution for purposes of clarifying an ambiguity in the statute? Because I think we heard from one of the authors of the statute here tonight, and she clarified what the intent of the legislature was. I, I understand that, but the, the unfortunate thing is, in Kentucky, legislative intent isn't given much consideration by the courts. And one way to clarify the ambiguity is by seeing, if not the language Dr. Stephens used, something like that, to move forward is... But what's the difficulty with that? I guess everybody's waiting on me to answer the question. I, I guess I would go back to the question that I asked the commissioner originally, and that is, if we don't do that, are the contracts that you and the previous mayor signed null and void? And the answer is no. And so, that's where I stand. Council Member Crosby. Uh, I was gonna call the question, but I noticed Council Member Beard had s- signed up to speak, so I was going to call the question. Council, Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Casey. Appreciate it . Um, it looks like we're in a catch-22 situation here. Um, I'm not, um... If we don't, if we don't authorize the mayor to do this, and he is listening to his law department, um, it won't get signed. If we do authorize it, we, um, without due study and not being a party to the negotiations and, and all of that, um, we all are gonna feel uncomfortable about that. Not, not necessarily the... It's a philosophical uncomforta- um, discomfort. It's not, uh, specifically to this contract, which I haven't gotten through yet, and, uh, I don't know what's gonna be on the next page, but, uh, I assume it's gonna be at the same, uh, uh, w- w- level as the rest of, what is it, 90 pages long or something of the sort. Um, you know, I, I wanna see the contract signed, and I wanna have the opportunity to study the contract within a reasonable length of time. And 48 hours is not a reasonable length of time. So, um, is there a third option? Well, if we're gonna, um, depend upon the, uh, the law department, uh, maybe we'll, uh, put the burden on them to, uh, come up with a third option of what we do at this point. Uh, Commissioner Askew, the ball, I just knocked it over the net. I, I, I caught it. Okay. I caught it. Uh, we'll, I mean, we'll certainly look at it, and it will be up to the mayor to decide how he wants to proceed. Um, and you all indicated how you wish to proceed. I think I, I hear most of you saying you think the mayor already has the authority, and I think Representative Stein has suggested that in her work in the legislature, that's the way she understood it as well. So if you all believe that the mayor already has the authority, uh, I think you've kind of indicated that to the mayor, and- ... um, I've tried to keep notes as we go along, but most of you seem to think that he already has the authority, but you don't want to vote to give him the authority, if I understand it. If I've got this correct, so... We'll see if there's another option, Councilmember Beard. We'll certainly take a look at it. I do, I do think this, though. I think, uh, some sort of legislative change would certainly clarify this. Um, as far as future contracts go, I do think now, there was some suggestion about hiring somebody else to give you another legal opinion. I can assure you, you can get another legal opinion. Uh, that would be the other way. Um, the, um... One of the things that I think might be helpful though, as we go forward with some additional contracts is to study pretty hard what other folks are doing under similarly worded statutes. And I've attempted to bring that to you. Our staff investigated that with the City of Louisville, and I believe the, the fellow that was... The gentleman that was with the firefighters' union indicated that that's what is being suggested here, as I read his email. Is, is how they proceed in Louisville. And that was my understanding from my staff. You've talked to Louisville staff on two or three occasions this week and last week. So, you know, we can take a look at it again, because there are going to be more contracts and, as you all know, we've got, I believe... I know we have, Mr. Sweeney, we have another police contract, is that right, that's being negotiated currently? And I believe we have two fire con- We're not negotiating that. I beg your pardon? We're not even negotiating that. Okay, I believe there are two. There's a fire contract, or two fire contracts, that are being negotiated right now. I'm not sure. I'm not involved in the negotiations. Well, in no case, in no time was, did I ever think that we were going to have this authorization happen this evening. It was going to be for a second reading two weeks down the road. Right. In my mind, I, obviously I can be overruled by the rest of the council, but that... So, you know, it getting signed tonight, m- I, was never an, an issue in my mind, because I didn't think that was going to happen either way. Um, the final arbiter, I suppose, would be the Attorney General, uh, absent of going to court over the subject, but, uh, uh... And would you go that route? Uh... I think that's... I think why I suggested it earlier, that would give you an opinion. And they do... The Attorney General's opinions do carry some weight in courts in Kentucky, but they are not the last word. A court would be the last word. A court would be the last word, but it's- Right. ... it's, it's- No, I think that... I do think that's worth exploring. And how quickly we could get an opinion, I'm not sure. Well, if we could get it within the two-weeks period, then we could do our second reading, first and second reading, at the next council meeting. And we'd really know where we stand at this point. We could attempt to do that. I have not... I don't believe that I have asked for an attorney general's opinion since Attorney General Conway has been in office. But there's one that's in process from, I think, carried over from last year, but we can try to get this speeded up, if you would like. This, this may not be rocket science, as far as he's concerned. I... Hopefully he, he could, uh, m- move fast on this for, for all the same reasons we'd like to. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Stevens. Uh, the purpose of my substitute resolutions, its wording may not have been clear, is to indicate that the council believes the mayor has the authority to go ahead and sign the thing and clarify the confusing information we're getting and conflicting opinions. So, that was the purpose of the resolution. Substitute resolution. Coun- Councilmember James. Thank you, Mayor. I just had an observation, um, listening to all the comments, and that is that Louisville's being used as a comparative city, and they are a partisan government. So I'm a bit concerned if part of their process of voting has to do with the fact that they're partisan. And we're not. Thank you, Mayor. Councilmember Crosby. I was gonna call the question. No one else wishes to, uh, speak on the issue. Uh, suppose we're ready to vote on the question on the floor right now, which is the approval of the substitute, uh, resolution offered, uh, by Councilmember Stevens. All in favor of approving that substitute, uh, uh, resolution, please indicate by saying, "Aye." Aye. Those opposed, "No." No. Motion carries. Excuse me, motion fails. I apologize. Motion fails. Now we're back to the original motion, which is to remove the item- Well, we have to approve the call in question first. Um, she didn't move the previous question. No one else wished to vote, so that's the reason why we didn't take a vote on that. Either way, I think you... The outcome's the same, so... Yeah, all right. Now we're ready to vote on the main motion, which is Councilmember Ellinger's original motion to, um, uh, take it from the docket. Any discussion on that issue? Could you restate the motion, just for the record, please? Pardon me? Could you restate the motion, just for the record, please? Certainly. Move to remove resolution 38 from the docket. Councilmember Stevens, uh, Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. I, I would add an amendment to that, and, and hopefully it'll be a friendly amendment, but we can make it a formal one. Um, I would add a language on the end, "And authorize and direct the mayor to sign the agreement as of September 18th, 2008." So moved. We have a motion to amend. Is there a second? Hear no second. Well, again, he doesn't have to sign it tonight, so, you know... The motion, the motion dies for lack of a second. All right. Any further discussion on the motion to remove item 38 from the docket? All in favor of, uh, approving the motion, please indicate by saying, "Aye." Aye. Oppose, no. Motion carries. Madam Clerk, I think we're ready to move on now with the reading of the ordinances entitled a second reading. Ordinance number one and ordinance accepting the bid of Herrick Company Incorporated on the amount of $248,500 for the chlorination equipment replacement for the town branch waste water treatment plant and appropriating funds pursuant to schedule number 51. Number two, an ordinance accepting the bid of Arrow Electric Company Incorporated in the amount of $710,170 for traffic signal rebuild signalization for a portion of Nickelsville Road for the Division of Traffic Engineering and appropriating funds pursuant to schedule number 53. Number three, an ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County government to execute and submit a grant application to the Kentucky Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet, to provide any additional information requested in connection with this grant application and to accept this grant if the application is approved, which grant funds are in the amount of $144,556 Commonwealth of Kentucky funds are for the continuation of the litter control program. The acceptance of which does not obligate the Irvin County Government for the expenditure of funds, appropriating funds pursuant to schedule number 42 and authorizing the mayor to transfer and encumber funds within the grant budget. Number four, an ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County government to accept a grant from the Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet, which grant funds are in the amount of $60,000 federal funds are for operation of a ticketing aggressive cars and trucks grant program. And the acceptance of which obligates the Irvin County government for the expenditure of $15,000 as a local match, appropriating funds pursuant to schedule number 44 and authorizing the mayor to transfer and cover funds within the grant budget. Number five, an ordinance amending ordinance number 261-2007, which authorized and directed the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County government to execute a reimbursement agreement with C Brothers LLC and Helen Meyer Properties LLC for developer reimbursement for construction of a sanitary sewer trunk line, to increase the cost of construction from $447,780.30 to $553,092.30 and appropriating funds pursuant to schedule number 43. Number six, an ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County government to accept a grant from the Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice, which grant funds are in the amount of $44,619 Commonwealth of Kentucky funds are for support of juvenile delinquency programming, the acceptance of which does not obligate the Irvin County government for the expenditure of funds and further authorizing and directing the mayor to execute an agreement with Croney and Clark Incorporated for the truancy reduction initiative at a cost not to exceed $44,619, appropriating funds pursuant to schedule number 52 and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number seven, an ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County government to execute a supplemental agreement number two with and to accept a grant from the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, which grant funds are in the amount of $770,000 federal funds are for the utilities phase of the Clays Mill Road improvement project. The acceptance of which obligates the Irvin County government for the expenditure of $192,500 as a local match, appropriating funds pursuant to schedule number 49 and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number eight, an ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County government to execute supplemental agreement number five with and to accept a grant from the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, which grant funds are in the amount of $255,486 federal funds are for the design, $11,486 right of way acquisition, $152,000 and utilities, $92,000 phases of the Richmond Road Multi-Use Path Project, the acceptance of which obligates the Irvin County government for the expenditure of $194,472, including for the construction phase as a local match appropriating funds pursuant to schedule number 48 and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number nine, an ordinance amending certain of the budgets of the Lexington Fayette Urban County government to reflect current requirements for municipal expenditures and appropriating and reappropriating funds schedule number 40. Number 10, a, an ordinance authorizing at payment in the amount of 1000... Excuse me, $1,408,100 to Kinzelman Kline Gossman LLC pursuant to the agreement authorized by resolution number 579-2007 for the design of sidewalks and streetscape improvements for the downtown area and appropriating funds pursuant to schedule number 47. Number 11, an ordinance submitting section21-5, subsection two of the code of ordinances abolishing one position of staff assistant grade 107N and creating one position of landfill inspector grade 108N in the Division of Waste Management and appropriating funds pursuant to schedule number 45. Number 12, an ordinance amending section 21-5, subsection two of the code of ordinances abolishing one position of telecommunicators senior grade 113N creating, and creating one position of administrative specialist principal grade 114E in the division of emergency management 911 and appropriating funds pursuant to schedule number 46. Number 13, an ordinance amending section eight of ordinance number 183-2008 to correct the authorized strength of the position of engineering technician grade 111N skilled trades worker senior grade 112N and public service worker grade 106N and amending section 10 of ordinance number 183-2008 to correct a division line number in amending section 12 of ordinance number 183-2008, transferring the incumbents for certain positions from the Division of Fire and Emergency Services to the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management of retroactive to July 8, 2008. And number 14, a... An ordinance authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Irvine County Government to accept donations totaling $475 from Mr. and Mrs. C.B Lovell III, Dr. Robert H. Spinning, Mr. and Mrs. E.T Delinder, Mr. Richard Emet- Vimont, Dr. and Mrs. Rayo- Rainer Mullins, Dr. Mary T. Unrue, Miss Janet D. Ellinger, and Miss Edna Land Nailer, in memory of Miss Hilda Ecton, to be used exclusively for improvements to Ecton Park and appropriating funds pursuant to schedule number 50. Thank you very much. That concludes the reading of the resolutio- of the ordinances entitled to, um, second reading. I move their approval. I have a motion to approve by Council Member Stevens, a second by Council Member Beard. Uh, any discussion? Those then in favor of approving those ordinances, please indicate by voting "I" electronically. Those opposed indicate by voting "Nay" electronically. Madam Clerk, please call the role. Mr. Blevins. Aye. Mr. Blues. Aye. Miss Crosby. Yes. Mr. Decamp. Yeah. Mr. Ellenger. Yeah. Miss Gorton. Aye. Mr. Gray. Yes. Miss Henson. Yes. Miss James. Yes. Mr. Lane. Yes. Mr. McCord. Yes. Mr. Meyers. Yes. Aye. Dr. Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Stennet. Yes, ma'am. And Mr. Beard. Aye. Thank you. Those ordinances are approved. Madam Clerk, if you'll give first reading to the ordinances entitled a first reading. Number 15. An ordinance changing the zone from an agricultural rural AR zone to an interchange service business B5P zone for 6.70 net, 9.23 gross acres, property located at 5191 8th and Spoons Burrow Road, a portion of JFG Enterprises Incorporated. Number 16. An ordinance change in the zone from a light industrial I-1 zone to a planned shopping center B6P zone for 6.58 net, 7.55 gross acres property, located at 3851 and 3885 Mall Road, Rose Hill Properties LLC. Number 17. An ordinance authori- an ordinance change in the zone from an agricultural urban AU zone to a planned unit development one PUD1 zone for 24.88 net 27.7 gross acres for a property located at 4500 Old School House Lane, subject to certain landscape and buffering restrictions imposed as conditions of granting the zone change, Kevin Krause, Premier Villages. Number 18. An ordinance change in the zone from an interchange service business B5P zone to an agricultural rule AR zone for 6.00 net and gross acres of property located at 5354 8th and Spoons Burrow Road, a portion of JFG Enterprises Inc. Number 19. An ordinance accepting the bid of Tico Mechanical Contractor Incorporated in the amount of $639,200 for waste management building, HVAC renovation for the Division of Waste Management and appropriating funds pursuant to schedule number 58. Number 20. An ordinance authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Irvine County Government to accept a grant from the Kentucky Division of Forestry, which grant funds are in the amount of $6,197. Federal funds are for support of public education and fire prevention efforts for citizens living in the rural and limited access areas of Lexington and Fayette County, the acceptance of which obligates the Irvine County Government for the expenditure of $1,550 as a local match, appropriating funds pursuant to schedule number 55, and authorizing the mayor to transfer encumbered funds within the grant budget. 21. An ordinance authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Irvine County Government to execute a sub-grant recipient agreement with Financial Commission for Appalachia, high intensity drug trafficking area, for receipt of federal funds for overtime, which grant funds are in the amount of $5,000 in appropriating funds pursuant to schedule number 56. Number 22. An ordinance amending certain of the budgets of the Lexington and Fayette and Irvine County Government to reflect current requirements for municipal expenditures and appropriating and reappropriating funds schedule number 55. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Unless there are any motions pertaining to those ordinances, we'll proceed with resolutions entitled to second reading. Resolution number one. A resolution accepting the bid of Watermark Construction LLC in the amount of a $185,502.70 for the Town Branch Trail phase two construction for the Division of Engineering. Number two. A resolution accepting the bid of Visual Images Image Systems, establishing a price contract for reflective vehicle decals for the Division of Police. Number three. A resolution accepting the bids of Ore Safety Corporation, Estab- Bluegrass Fire Equipment, and Bluegrass Uniforms Incorporated, establishing price contracts for wild land firefighting equipment for the Division of Fire and Emergency Services. Four. A resolution accepting the bid of Logan Security Incorporated, establishing a price contract for Gainesway Community C- Center Security for the Department of General Services. Five. A resolution accepting the bids of Environmental Resources Incorporated, Superior Demolition Incorporated, and Solid Rock Construction Services, establishing price contracts for the demolition of residential structures for the Division of Engineering. Six. A resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Irvine County Government to execute and submit a grant application to the Environmental Protection Agency and to provide any additional information requested in connection with this grant application, which grant funds are in the amount of $220,000 federal funds and are for the Empowering Lexington to Use Power Wisely Project. Number seven. A resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Irvine County Government to execute an agreement with Marriott Griffin Gate Resort and Spa for the Crime Analyst Symposium at a cost not to exceed $2,263. Number eight. A resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Irvine County Government to execute an agreement with US Geological Survey for the continuing and ongoing maintenance and operation of existing stream flow and precipitation gauges at a cost not to exceed $86,910. Number nine. A resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Irvine County Government to execute an agreement with Mash Services of the Bluegrass Incorporated for operation of the Mash Drop-In Facility at a cost not to exceed $173,458 in grant funds from the US Department of Health and Human Services. Number ten. A resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Irvine County Government to execute a standard software maintenance agreement with New World Systems Corporation for software maintenance support at a cost not to exceed $240,369. Number eleven. A resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Irvine County Government... To execute agreements with William Wells Neighborhood Association Incorporated, $150, American Cancer Society Incorporated, $50, Mothers of the Earth United Incorporated, $205, Owl Foundation Incorporated, $125, Martin Luther King Neighborhood Association Incorporated, $250, and American Lung Association of Kentucky Incorporated, $700 for the Office of the Irvin County Council at a cost not to exceed the sums stated. Number 12. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County government to execute change order number one of the contract with Strand Associates Incorporated for the solid waste expansion project, increasing the contract price by the sum of forty, $44,504, from $408,600 to $453,104. Number 13. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County government to execute a certificate of consideration and accept a deed conveying permanent sanitary sewer and temporary construction easements from DDD and W LLC for a property located at 4615 Nicholasville Road for the South Elkhorn Force Main Project, and authorizing payment in the amount of $13,500 plus usual and appropriate closing costs. Number 14. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County government to execute a certificate of consideration and accept a deed conveying permanent sanitary sewer and temporary construction easements from Cassidy Limited Partnerships Two for a property located at 5170 Harrodsburg Road for the South Elkhorn Force Main Project, and authorizing payment in the amount of $12,000 plus usual and appropriate closing costs. Number 15. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County government to execute a certificate of consideration and accept a deed conveying permanent sanitary sewer and temporary construction easements from Jeanette Germain, Christopher Germain, and Logan Germain for a property located at 2725 Brandon Road for the South Elkhorn Force Main Project and authorizing payment in the amount of $10,900 plus usual and appropriate closing costs. Number 15. A resolution ratifying the probationary civil service appointments of David Winling, Equipment Operator Senior Grade 109N 12.841 hourly in the Division of Water Quality, effective September 15th, 2008. Darryl Baker, Equipment Operator Senior Grade 109N 18.664 hourly in the Division of Waste Management, effective September 15th, 2008. Theresa Sanders, Equipment Operator Senior Grade 109N 13.774 hourly in the Division of Waste Management, effective September 15th, 2008. Winfred Lewis, Equipment Operator Senior Grade 109N 18.664 hourly in the Division of Waste Management, effective September 1st, 2008. Jill Wilson, Recreation Specialist Senior Grade 113E 16.5568 biweekly in the Division of Parks and Recreation, effective September 15th, 2008. Jacqueline Phelps, Administrative Specialist Grade 112N 16.120 hourly in the Department of Environmental Quality, effective September 15th, 2008. Ratifying the permanent civil service appointments of Robert Pogue, GIS Specialist Grade 114N in the Division of Computer Services, effective April 1st, 2008. Ratifying the permanents -- pro- the probationary sworn appointments of Jeremy Wheatley, Fire Lieutenant Grade 315N 16.261 hourly in the Division of Fire and Emergency Services, effective September 1st, 2008. Kenneth Wagland, Fire Captain Grade 316N 21.497 hourly in the Division of Fire and Emergency Services, effective September 1st, 2008. Sean Bryan, Fire Major Grade 318E 3381.38 biweekly in the Division of Fire and Emergency Services, effective September 1st, 2008. Probationary community corrections appointments, Stanley Anderson; Calvin Bennett; Jessica Bradley; Deven Bryan; Amy Burnet -- Bunton Cornett; Kimberly Campbell; Christopher Carter; Henry Cottle; Stephanie Doss; Robert Dunn; Paul Gains; Jer- John Gerar- Gerardi; Trent Gross; James Harmon; Alfred Harris; Adam Hires; Mi- Michelle Hunt; Daniel Keeling; De- Kevin Lawson; Jessie Little; Scott McCracken; Daniel Pedigo; Heather Ray; Ann Schultz; Rochelle Walker, Community Corrections Officer Grade 110N 13.930 hourly in the Division of Community Corrections, effective September 2nd, 2008. Permanent community corrections appointments. Paul Ogilla, Community Corrections Officer Grade 110N in the Division of Community Corrections, effective August 20th, 2008. Wendy Ambergy; Matthew Crawford; Jason Durham; Tanya Fairchild; William Green; Daryl Maggard; Levodis Me- Meadows; Sean Norman; Randolph Parker; Michael Rowe; Melody Sharpsher; Michael Weller; Todd Young, Community Corrections Officer Grade 110N in the Division of Community Corrections, effective September 3rd, 2008. Approving leave of absence for Laurie Vanover-Sie- Laurie Vanover-Sieger, Probation Officer Juvenile Grade 112N in the Division of Youth Services, requests a 20-day counsel-approved leave without pay from September 4th, 2008 through September 23rd, 2008. Bonnie Miracle, Social Services Supervisor Grade 115E in the Division of Youth Services, requests a 60-day counsel-approved leave without pay from August 22nd, 2008 through October 20, 2008. Shelanda Holiday, Administrative Specialist Grade 110N in the Division of Police, requests a 90-day counsel-approved leave without pay from August 1st, 2008 to October 29th, 2008. Approving the unclassified civil service appointment of Ricky Caldwell, Administrative Officer Grade 118E 2008, 39.44 biweekly in the Department of General Services, effective September 8th, 2008. Marie Undee, Staff Assistant Senior Grade 108N 11.252 hourly in the Division of Water Quality, effective September 1st, 2008. Number -- number sixteen. Okay. Thank you. Number 15 that I o- omitted, excuse me. Uh, resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County government to execute a certificate of consideration and accept a deed conpay- conveying a permanent sanitary sewer and temporary construction easements from Jeanette Ger- Germain. I did read that. Christopher Germain and Logan Germain for a property located at 2725 Brandon Road for the South Elkhorn Force Main Project and authorize the payment in the amount of $10,900 plus usual and appropriate closing costs. Okay. Number 17. ... a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County government to execute a purchase of service agreement with Simon and Company Incorporated for services related to federal matters and funding as provided... as further provided in the 2008, 2009 work plan at the cost not to exceed $39,000. Number 18, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County government to execute a mental health services agreement with, for Bluegrass Regional Mental Health Mental Retardation Board Incorporated for court-ordered mental health evaluations of- of clients referred to the Division of Youth Services at a cost not to exceed $2,500. Number 19, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County government to execute an affiliation agreement with University of Kentucky for its UK Healthcare programs for paramedic clinic training, clinical training at no cost to the Irvin County government. Number 20, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County government to execute a revised group sales agreement with Hyatt Regency Lexington for the Bluegrass Invitational Wheelchair Basketball Tournament at no cost to the Irvin County government; 21, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County government to execute a renewed agreement of affiliation with the Bluegrass Crime Stoppers Incorporated for services and assistance at no cost to the Irvin County government; 22, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County government to execute an agreement with Open Gates Neighborhood Association, $750 for the office of the Irvin County Council at a cost not to exceed the sum stated; 23, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County government to execute a lease agreement with Employment Solutions Incorporated for the East Sector Rollcall Facility beginning July 1, 2008 for a term of five years subject to sufficient funds being appropriated in subsequent fiscal years at a cost not to exceed $2,812 per- per month; 24, a resolution approving the report of the audit examination of the Lexington-Fayette Irvin County Government/Sheriff's Settlement 2007 taxes for taxes collected as of April 24th, 2008 and granting a sheriff- the sheriff a quietus- Excuse me, Madam Clerk. Uh, Council Member Ehlinger, I think you wanted the floor. Thank you, Mayor. I've got a couple of questions, I- I guess. Um, do we have anybody here that can answer on- on the TIF? What- Can you tell me what specific question do you have? Uh, just- uh, just, um, a couple general questions, but I don't know who would be the proper person to ask. Out of th- uh, Mr. Turner could answer it or... I don't see Mr. Parsons here. Is he? M- Mr. Parsons is not. Uh, Commissioner Askew is nearby, anyway. I guess, um, you might be able to answer these. If not, I can try to direct them to somebody else. Uh, will this project with you all, will that be built before the TIF money is spent? It is a- a requirement of the Super TIF before any, uh, state money is released, any- any of the- the proceeds are released from the state back to the city, that, uh, 200 mil- at least $200 million has been spent and proven to the state. So, when you're all doing your project with CenterPoint, what's gonna be going on with the- the garage beside it? 'Cause I would have to think those would be working simultaneously 'cause I would hate to have to do that and then come back do- and not work on the infrastructure and then come back again and do the garage. Well- well, a- I would have to think they would be together. Th- Those are interesting questions, and it- it would, uh, you- you get into an issue of how you do, how you might do any interim financing for those projects, and, uh, how that could be structured. But, um, in- in many respects, um, uh, I mean, that's one of the things the financial advisor's gonna have to determine is to how to put that financial package together. But, uh, there are a number of ways to do it, but it- it kind of depends on, uh, on the, to- to a large degree, on the underwriting when you get to that point. 'Cause one argument I've heard is that we're not gonna be out anything, the government, because y'all have your project done before, and it'll already be done and- and finished, and then, the TIF money can be applied towards the projects we're gonna do. Yeah, and- and it is very, it is very, uh, possible under that scenario that, uh, the- the Phoenix garage, if it were deemed to, I mean, if it was a part of the- the project to go forward and be funded, as y'all may later decide, um, that it may, it- it may very well have to be done at- at- at- at second, at, uh, uh, later, after the, uh, after the, uh, CenterPoint project is substantially completed. Okay. I think, Mr. Askew, you might be able to answer this one. One of the other questions, um, is the government's responsibility for the bonds, and what will we be held accountable, um, at what kind, or will we have any guarantee on the TIF bonds? 'Cause I know c- citizens are worried about that, that we're gonna have to be, we might be held accountable for that. If you've seen what's happened in the last 72 hours from Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, Franny, Fannie, Freddie, AIG, all these have, and just locally here on Wednesday, there was a project, the Mark on Woodland Avenue. So what will we be held accountable on these bonds? We're not going to be held accountable at all. I believe the bonds will be sold and the purchasers will bear the risk of the bonds. Now, if we want to, uh, and I believe perhaps in Louisville... Is Mr. Ferris here? He's not here. I believe in Louisville, they agreed to, uh, put a certain amount in or guarantee a certain amount of the bond repayment. But it's my understanding the bonds would be sold on the market and it would be the bond holders that would be the ones responsible for- Well, did you say we will be... You said in Louisville that they did add a guarantee to that then? Yeah, I mean, that is something that I think if at some point the government decided that it wanted to do, it could be done, but that's not part of what's being proposed here. In fact- I think it has been suggested in the TIF delegation meetings that you might not have to issue bonds at all, Councilman Ellinger. You could wait to do any projects until the tax increment monies were available and do the projects as they became available, as opposed to going out and having the money, all the money be made available and then repay with the tax increment financing when it came back in. Uh, Mr. Turner, I got a question for you, if you don't mind. You've stated that you have an agreement that says that you have the financing, that's equity financing, so that's not gonna be an issue? We, we have, uh, we have a signed agreement with our equity investor who has, who i- i- is not lending the money, but is putting the money into the project as a, in exchange for a percentage interest in the project, and that has been signed and- One of the big questions here is the transparency of that because of the issues with the financing. Is there any way that you could redact the name and you could present a, a contract or agreement to us so we would have that? I would have to re-, I would have to, to review the contract, to be perfectly honest with you, but I, I, then I would have to have the con- even under those circumstance, circumstances, I would have to have the consent of the investor. It's very- Well, would that be a possibility if you could take out, do you think, the sensitivity issues and the name, but have the contract that would be available, so we would have some kind of- I, I, again, there are a number of things in that contract that are very sensitive to the, to the trans-, to the transaction, the deal and how it operates, uh, which would not, uh, redacted or otherwise, uh, would not be appropriate, uh, uh, to, to, to make public. In other words, it's more than a document that says, it's a document that says what happens with regard to the interests, uh, if, w- w- whether buy or sell provisions. There are other, I mean, there are other issues in that document that are, are, are, are, should not, uh, I'm sure the investor would not agree to make, be made public. I'm not sure my client, that the Webbs would be agreeable to have made public. One of the big issues that I have a complaint with, that a lot of people have, is the ped ways. Is there a way that that can be taken out? Because I think that has been proven over time that has really not been beneficial to the- W- well, yeah. I mean, we didn't put the... I mean the ped ways have been suggested because it completes a circuit, uh, uh, around town. Y'all will have to determine whether the ped ways stay in or not. I mean, that's your choice. Can we do that this evening or do we have to wait till we have- A- a- again, you can do it anytime you want to. Uh, the actual choice to do it is, I mean, there's plenty of time to do it or not do it. One of the things you do need to be aware, we are at this point probably if, if the Phoenix garage is, uh, a- a- approved as a part of it, one option is to put an underground passway between the garage, the two garages under, under limestone, which would eliminate the ped way. So we would probably then do those two projects simultaneous then to make it- Well, not necessarily. You'd have to- ... and they would not be required then. No. I mean, you'd have to, you'd have to design for it, but you wouldn't have to build them. And one, and one of the other issues that was addressed the other day was about a study that was going to cost 50,000, and did we get some information related- We, yeah, I, I, I can bring you, there has been discussion about that and, uh, uh, we would be agreeable, uh, to, uh, advancing that 50,000 to, to, to furnish funding that $50,000 to the city, uh, for that study on the condition that if it, the TIF was approved and it was recoverable, that we would recover it, but we would take the risk of loss if the TIF was not approved, is the point. Thank you. Um, is Mr. Askew here or Mr. Kelly? One of the other issues, we have not really h- had, as far as I'm concerned, the opportunity to have public comment. I guess by us doing this, we'll be having a public hearing and I think that's very important. I guess if we don't pass this today, we won't have that public hearing, would that be correct? We could not table this and then wait for the public hearing because that wouldn't be possible then. Councilmember Ellinger, I believe what this resolution does is you say, go forward with preparation of the development plan and schedule a public hearing. Um, the development plan is a document that takes some time to get together. It requires the developer's input, plannings, Harold Tates, laws, there are a lot of, there's a lot of information that needs to be gathered. And so work has already begun on that because the document has to be filed in the clerk's office seven days before the public hearing. So, um, I think we've got to go forward with the, the development plan development. Does that mean you have to approve it? No. In fact, you probably want to wait until after the public hearing and see what the public has to say about it before you make any decision and that's part of the reason I think the statute says that you can't enact an ordinance which adopts that development plan until 30 days after that public hearing. So you all have an opportunity to consider that after the development plan is debated by the public. Well, I think at this point I would, I would move forward to make sure that we have a public hearing 'cause I, I felt like I, at this point, have not had the opportunity to have public comment to us from this arena. Well, Councilmember Ellinger, you're, you're, you're not a member of the TIF delegation, but that was discussed the other day because there's another resolution on the distillery district. And the question arose, do we want to have the development p- plan presented to the committee before the public hearing so everybody can at least look at it? And I think the decision was made to go ahead and do that. So, there will be an opportunity and I think we were gonna have all council members provided with a copy. I think we were gonna try to post it on the website so everybody can have a good look at it before that public hearing. Thank you. Is, uh, Mr. Turner, in the interim, is there an opportunity that you could in good faith at least, um, address the issue I asked about looking at the agreement and potentially looking at redacting if possible? I'll certainly be glad to, to look at it, but I, I really can't a- a- I, I can't stand here and, and I, I don't know- That's fine if you can at least- Yeah. Yeah. I don't, I don't want- ... attempt to do that. I don't wanna mislead you 'cause I, I'm very skeptical that it, it would, it, it, that I could be, that I could produce that for you. I think it's, everybody, especially in the f- the financialish times that we are in right now, I think on the front page of Wall Street Journal, Alan Greenspan, our former Fed chief said, "This is the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression." So when you hear those kinda things, I think we're all a little on edge. Well, and I, you know, I, I, I, I hope, I've stood in front of you many, many years. And I hope when I tell you that I've seen it and worked on it and have, and have, uh, know that it's signed and put in place that would have some bearing with regard to your comfort level that it, that it exists. I do appreciate the, um, your acknowledgment tonight about the 50,000 though. That's all the questions I have, Mayor. Thank you. I have a couple of other council members who've indicated a desire to speak. And then we also have several members of the public who are here that have indicated a desire to speak on this particular issue. So, um, um, my sense of it is now, it might be a good time to just get into it full bore, if it meets with the council's approval. Seeing no objection, we'll proceed. Council member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, Mr. Turner, if you got a second. Yes. Um, he- help me one, uh, one more time so that, uh, the, the question of the $200 million threshold before money would flow. Mm-hmm. Um, o- obviously, i- i- in that span of time, that, that's a 18-month, two-year process to, to get to the $200 million. Um, that's fairly strong evidence, I would think, that there's f- financial viability in the project. Uh, the people that are building that aren't, uh, uh, holding their breaths until the end to get their, get their money. Uh- No. ... and pay. No. No. You're correct. And that, you know, one of the elements that I indicated the last time I wa- was here is that Bovis has been selected as contractor. And the contract is in the, in, they've been working with us for the last three months, four months, um, on the, on the plans and the detail of, of the building. Uh, they're not working for free and they're not gonna enter into a contract of this, of a, of, of this size of $200 million plus unless they are, uh, assured that they're gonna get paid. I, I- And that money, at that point, they will, that money has to be spent, not just the work in place, but that money has to be spent. Uh, uh- Well, you know, I, I would agree that, um, the public and, uh, I, myself am a little edgy about the financial situation as it is, es- especially when I look at my IRA statements. But, um, I didn't get one for today yet. And, uh, from what I understand, I could go, I can do a little dance now because it was up 400 points. Um, I mean, that's kinda the, the, the life we lead. It's been bouncing, uh, in the 1,000-point range now for, uh, nine months, up and down and up and down. And it, it wears me out. So I decided to quit looking at the bouncing ball and, and, uh, uh, uh hang on until I retire and start, uh, start drawing it. And hopefully it'll all be there. Um, I just wanted to reinforce the fact that, if, if we get to the $200 million point, there is no, there is no, uh, serves no purpose in getting any kind of affirmation that the money isn't, not there 'cause the money will have already been there and been there for 18 months. Thank you. Council member James. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to restate again, um, to m- my constituents and to those watching that this is not, this resolution is not a req- a requirement of the TIF. The ordinance is the requirement, which will come later after the development plan comes forward, that this is only, um, this was just a request, a resolution. Um, there is nothing, um, anything that's included in this resolution could happen without the resolution. It's very similar to, to what we just argued about, um, the contract with FOP. It's, um, it's going to, it can and has the authority to move forward with or without passage of this resolution. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Vice Mayor Gray. Darby, um, I, I was sort of determined that I wasn't gonna ask any questions tonight, but with Council Member Ehlinger's question on the financing, I really can't avoid this question. I can't help myself. In 36 years in business, and you've been, done a lot of projects, in 36 years in the construction business, I have never seen a project where the financial investors were unwilling to reveal themselves for a project, especially one of this significance. Now, so are they embarrassed about Lexington or about the project? Or, there are a lot of rumors that money's in a vault in the Middle East. I mean, so what is the big secret? They choose not to be revealed, period. I mean, it's, it's, it's not complica- As I said- It's not, it's not complicated. As I said, you know, it's just, and especially as, as Councilmember Ehlinger said, you know, it's, it's not surprising that in these times, with the meltdowns in the markets all around us, that this would be a rather amazing event. So... Councilmember- Thank you, Mayor. Councilmember Lane. Uh, thank you, Mayor. I noticed, uh, some opposition to the pedways, and I even mentioned that in my comments a, a week or so ago. Uh, so I did a little bit of research, and I, I found an ad, which I'm gonna ask to put on the overhead, that was used by the Louisville Convention and Visitors Bureau, uh, that is promoting the pedway system they have in downtown Louisville, so that when people come in for conventions, they don't have to have a car under any kind of, uh, weather conditions. They can walk anywhere, uh, and go into the convention center, and they consider that such a good marketing tool that they actually run national ads, uh, promoting that. And then, uh, when I thought more about the pedway issue, of course, I work downtown, and I don't walk in the pedways unless it's raining, snow, sleet, wind, or freezing cold, and... But when I do use it, it's really nice to have, and so, uh, you know, I think we would be, uh, silly to take those out of the, uh, the proposal, because those are just preliminary conceptual ways we could spend the money. It's not obligated to do so. Um, so I'm suggesting we leave that back in. Then, and my final comment is that, uh, I hate to admit this, uh, Vice Mayor Gray, but I've been in the real estate business for a long time too, and one of the most fascinating things about real estate is that every deal is unique and different. And I, over my career, you know, I can think of all different, uh, approaches, and this is obviously a very unusual and unique deal where your investors don't wanna disclose, uh, their name, and I think we just have to go with it. Thank you, Mayor. That's all I have. Councilmember Henson. Oh, sorry. Maybe it was already on. Um, last Tuesday, I voted not to put this on the docket, but maybe... I felt like I was putting the brakes on prematurely. There's really no risk involved in seeing the development plan and having the public comment. So... uh, I'm gonna vote for this resolution, and I, I also agree, and I'm glad that, uh, Mr. Ehlinger brought up all those questions, because it is a very, very tight market right now. We know economically, we're in bad shape. Um, but the risk of just carrying this a little more forward just to see what we've got, um, and I really, really wanna do what is best for our city. I, I, Lex- I love Lexington. I love the courthouse. And if we could get something done with state monies that we wouldn't normally get, I think we should try to take advantage of it. So, thank you. Councilmember McCord. Thank you, Mayor. Vice Mayor, you said that you were doing everything you could to bite your tongue to not speak, and when you spoke, it caused me to have to speak. So, you're the domino. Um, and Councilmember Beard wanted me to tell you that in his 50 years of banking, he has seen a number of these type of deals. So, uh, it's one of those things where I don't think it's as strange as, as we may see. And I know that in this particular situation, there was a confidentiality agreement signed, and legally, uh, we're asking them to do something that they can't do. Um, and I, I, I started questioning why we're asking that question when we don't ask it of anybody else. Uh, we certainly didn't ask it of people who've developed in downtown already. We're not asking it of certain others, and, uh, and I, I come back to some of the personal attacks on, on these folks that are doing it. And, uh, and again, I, I think that, uh, we have a responsibility to certainly look after taxpayers and so forth, and, uh, but when you start getting personal, that, that may cross a line of, of what our job actually is. But I wanted to say this to, to those watching and to us sitting up here, you know, the... What is the argument of why we shouldn't do this? You know, why shouldn't we do this? It... And I keep coming w- back to hearing, "Well, it's gonna make us look bad if, uh, if it fails," or as I said the other day, you know, when it fails, this kind of defeatist mentality that we've adopted. Well, let me just tell you one of the most embarrassing moments being on this council was about two weeks ago when Mr. Turner said it was revealed who the hotel partner was, and we had folks from this community writing letters to JW Marriott saying, "We don't want you. Don't come here." Now, let me just tell you right now, uh, that makes us look bad now. And I don't know if all those who have fought so hard and passionately, um, for their side of this equation is to not do this, recognize what you're doing to this city, to our image. See, there's a lot of people sitting on the sidelines watching to see how we handle this. There's a lot more opportunity that's staring us in the face. And, um... You know, we hear various and sundry reasons why we shouldn't do things, but at tonight, we're talking about going forward with an application to see if we can do something. We're not talking about jeopardizing future TIFFs. Heck, there may not be future TIFFs come next legislative session. Don't even think for a moment this is something that's just gonna be there forever and ever and ever, and, oh gosh, we, we may not be able to get, uh, Barry's project in Manchester Street if we, if we blow it on this one. Uh, I, I think that, uh, again, for me, what was very humbling and embarrassing was to hear how people in Lexington, uh, acted in this situation. And, you know, when we start doing that, when we send that kinda message to people, "Hey, we don't want your business." And then we have the same folks complaining about, "Well, we want more services, but we don't wanna pay any more taxes, and how dare you even, uh, look at this or look at that." I think that we have to take a long hard look in the mirror and realize what's going on here. At the end of the day, why shouldn't we take a full advantage of every opportunity we have to see if we can do something? And that is what we're talking about tonight. Let's see if we can do this. Let the state turn us down. That's fine. Let's move forward with this, but when it gets down to it, you know, if you're gonna lead a charge against this, recognize, are you doing more harm than good by tell... and by arousing people in this community up to send letters to a, a, someone who is interested in putting money in, in their investment here and saying, "We don't want you." That is not very smart as a community who is in desperate need of revenue and desperate need of jobs, and especially in revitalizing, revitalizing downtown. The last thing I'll say about revitalizing downtown, I've also heard a lot about, "This is so out of scale, and nobody's gonna come down here and, and stay in this." Um, what brings people downtown are amenities, the amenities of downtown. What we're talking about with TIFF is using the TIFF money, our tax money locally, and creating amenities so people can come downtown. Farmer's market, revitalizing the courthouse, burying power lines. These are the things that bring people downtown. The hotel is not being built for Lexingtonians to come downtown. It's being built so others will come here and enjoy this place, and what we get out of it is the TIFF money, and that's for our people. And that's where there's a big misconception about what's going on here. And, again, uh, at the end of the day, I would say that I'm tired of, of this defeatist attitude, about we're gonna fail at all costs. Rather, we have a, a responsibility to move forward, and, and we have a responsibility to do everything we can in our power for the people of this city and to make this a better place. And to not move forward on this is... borders on shortsightedness and a personal attack. And at the end of the day, I support this motion. Council member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. We've had a long debate on this subject, and I think we've explored the merits of, of the TIFF from several points of view. I wanna suggest, i- in fact, I wanna affirm, that my opposition to this TIFF is not a personal attack on anybody, nor does it invite personal attacks on anybody. My opposition to this TIFF is that it's a flawed process from the very beginning, that the, that the Centre Point project is antithetical to the, to the public amenities and to the downtown atmosphere that we want to create. It's not a personal argument. And so I wanna just suggest that, as you said yourself, Jay, couple of weeks ago, we all want what's best for our city, that we may indeed disagree on ways to go about it. And so I would hope that going forward in these discussions, you know, we can, we can disagree with one another on, on our, uh, you know, on the facts, on our, on our, on our, on our points of view, and we're gonna vote yes or no. But it's not personal, it's not an attack, and it's not an invitation for folks to write nasty letters to developers and say, "We don't want their business." Thank you, Mayor. Council member Ellinger. Thank you, Mayor. I just... I think I need to answer one question here 'cause I think that it may be misconstrued, but I am for property rights. I, I always happy when somebody's willing to, to risk and put their investment into projects and to make Lexing better. But there's always a difference though, but when you have money, taxpayer's money involved, I think this requires extra public scrutiny, and I think that's what the process we're doing right now. Council member Blues, I have you back on the list, but I, um, that may be just an error. Okay. Council member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to say that I agree with what Council man Ellinger just said actually, is that this... a vote in the affirmative for this motion today allows the community to get the input that they wanted and have that public hearing and hear all about this project, listen to the different project list opportunities that we have, and be able to have their input that they wanna have. And so I encourage all my colleagues here to vote in favor of this motion tonight, so that the citizens can have the information presented, um, in a comprehensive way that, uh, doesn't allow for misinformation to continue on, and then they get to go ahead and have their, their input. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, Council member James. Uh, yes, just to respond to that, that, um, it does, the resolution does include, uh, scheduling a public hearing and that could happen without this resolution, so that ne... Anyone watching in the public understands that, that it doesn't have to be included in this particular resolution to have a public hearing. Thank you. All right, if there's nothing further from the council, I have, um, six or eight folks who have indicated a desire to speak on this particular resolution. Um, and just so everybody's aware, it... I have Preston Pinely, Joe Graves, Laurie Doherty, Jamie Millard, Timothy Price, Charlie Moore, Ms. Jack... Renee Jackson, you wished to speak on the TIFF issue. Uh, Mr. Maher and, uh, Jim Clarke. Is there anyone else who hasn't signed up? All right, then, Mr. Pinely, if you would step forward to the podium, you'll have three minutes. Mr. Graves, I'd ask that you come around and be close. You're fairly close. And we'll, uh, proceed. Mr. Pinely, if you'll give us your, uh, full name and address. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My name is Preston Pinely. I live at 325 Blackburn Avenue, downtown. Um, part... A big part of the reason why I'm urging you to vote no on this resolution is because of, uh, a lack of a planning process. What I've viewed in attending two or three meetings has been, um, just more and more questions about how the, how the city should go about this. And what I noticed in some of the comments recently was that, uh, we're even in how the TIFF delegation is going to approach the Manchester Street Distillery District project. You know, "Let's bring a development plan. Let's have it on the table. Let's talk about it in a TIFF delegation," is a lot different than where this process stands for the downtown, the Phoenix Park area development district. So, it- it's been murky. It doesn't seem well understood. And I think that the risk is y- y- you all's time and energy and resources is very valuable. Um, so I think that the, the risk is, is putting that time to developing the process, uh, in a... toward projects that, that the public can feel very comfortable with and stand behind. And in particular, the Distillery District is a, a, a grand concept compared to, um, the number of projects downtown that are... s- seem like a, a, a piecemeal, a la carte list of projects th- that can come and go. And the lack of enthusiasm for a concept for what's happening with the proposed development plan is something else that, um, strikes me. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Pinely. And Mr. Graves, I understand from the notes here that Ms. Doherty may be, uh, yielding her time to you. Is that correct, Ms. Doherty? All right, then you'll have six minutes, Mr. Graves. My name is Joe Graves, and I live at 1306 Fincastle Road. Um, I think the discussion earlier, uh, at this meeting has been helpful. And I appreciate what, uh, commission member James has suggested, that it's... this motion may not be necessary, but it does get you a little bit more involved in the TIFF process. And that's what I think you oughta be very careful about. As Councilman Ellinger pointed out, our country's going through unparalleled times. I have kind of the... an unhappy distinction of being one of the oldest people in this room, and I can't remember a time like this. So this is a time to be particularly careful. And I would like to get back to the question that... And I have also spent some time as a banker. I spent time on the loan committee, and I borrowed some money from banks. So I'm kind of... You know, you and I have been in the same field. And I think it should be very concerning to all of you that this community doesn't know who is gonna put up the money. Now, I, I respect Mr. Turner. I understand his position, but there is a way to make this community and this council comfortable that the money is really gonna be there. Now, take the, the contractor. The contractor, we understand from Mr. Turner, is pleased to sign a contract and go ahead with this thing. Well, that contractor, I can guarantee you, has been assured that the money's gonna be there. So it's a reasonable request for you all to ask for that same assurance. And I think there's a way to do it that protects the privacy of, uh, of the investors. I think it can be done that money could be escrowed. Uh, you all can select an escrow agent that you believe in and trust. Um, so I think there's a way to do that. And, uh, uh, a thing that concerns me, which would concern any banker, uh, and I think c- should concern every elected official, that, uh, no real, um, good, independent market research has been insisted on by this administration. Now, it's not the council's responsibility to ask for that, except that the mayor has not asked for it. And when I talk about market research, what I'm suggesting is that you all should know, before you vote on this finally, what effect this is gonna have on Lexington. ... all this additional office space, all this additional retail space, all the -- these additional hotel rooms at these high, high prices, what's that gonna do to the existing facilities? And is it reasonable to expect any kind of customer to pay those high prices? So I would, I would urge you to, to stop, look, and listen. Uh, and again, I think, uh, Councilman Blue's point out that this is not a personal attack. I've known Don and Dudley Webb for a long time, and liked them, and have done business with them. It's not easy for me to stand up here and oppose something th- they wanna do. Uh, but this is public business. The public interest is involved here. And the reputation of this government, this administration and this community is at stake. Because even though you're not liable, the city wouldn't be liable for those TIF bombs, your reputation's gonna be involved. And if things go wrong, as they might, uh, then we could end up as we did with the Festival Market. The city eventually got its money back, but not from the developers. The city had to make a claim against Kentucky Central Life Insurance Company to get its investment back. So this is a time to be careful, to be very careful. Nationally, it's a time to be careful, and in our own community, people who own houses and own real estate are getting ready to write a pretty big check. That real estate tax is gonna be due very soon. And so, I think because of the national situation, uh, and the, and the local concerns about Center Point, I hope you're very, very careful. And I hope you use the time between now and the public hearing to have some market research done. I'd, I'd require the developers to pay for it, even though you select the people who do the market research. I think you oughta do due diligence, which the mayor has not done, doesn't think it's his responsibility. But as a banker, you would do due diligence in a deal like this, particularly if you didn't know who was putting up the money. So this is a time to be very, very careful. And I would like to, um, thank the mayor for answering my letter. Um, I, I'm gonna leave a copy, Mayor, of a paper I've done that includes your responses. And I, I have the impression, and I'm gonna le- leave this with you, that, um, the last couple lines of your response to question seven I think is very important. "I anticipate the decisions about Phoenix Park will not be finally made for another two years, so what actions I will take at that time will depend on the circumstances confronting the community." That, that is, I think gives people a lot of relief, because we don't wanna spend tax money building a huge garage under Phoenix Park without being sure that the whole development is gonna go. So two years, I th- I find very gratifying. Your, your- Thank you. Your time's expired. Councilman, uh, Myers has correctly noted the issue here is not the approval or disapproval of the Center Point project per se, it's a question of whether or not to approve the resolution to go forward with the, uh, uh, public hearing on the TIF and the preparation of the development plan on, on that particular area. Um, and if you could restrict your comments in that regard, it would be helpful. Mr. Millard, uh, if you could just give us your, uh, full name and address, you'll have three minutes. My name is J- James Kemper Millard. I reside at 2580 Waterwild Lane. Um, if you don't know that I'm the president of the History Museum, uh, you haven't been paying attention. But also, if you don't know, it's not the courthouse, you also haven't been paying attention, because the courthouse now is at the corner of Limestone and Main Street. We're talking about the Lexington History Museum, which is operated, been in existence now for almost nine years. Uh, come next month, we will have had our doors open for five years. Uh, so we just need to move that ball down, down the court and begin to recognize we do have a wonderful Lexington History Center comprised of four museums that tell the story of our community, not only to the members of our community, but also to the visitors of our community. I hope that's the last time I have to say that, but I doubt it. Uh, second, I know I don't sound like it, but I'm a native of Lexington. I've been in Lexington about half my life, outside of Lexington where I lost my, my, uh, accent up in Yankee land. Uh, but I, I have seen, and as a preservation, it, it has sometimes torn my heart out, how a property owner can take what might be conceived as a beautiful building and change it and alter the space. And that will happen, because it is private investors making decisions that are based on their own risk and their own measure of success. And we should look to the vision. And it's not, do we need something today, although I would admit that the Lexington History m- m- h- history center does need improvements today. But we're talking about community needs that are 10 years out, 20 years out, 30 years out. It's not what goes up on the block that's important today, because those decisions have been made. It's what we do with the land the community can change around that area. And it's streetscaping... If we have broken bricks on our streets in 20 years, shame on all of us. Here's the opportunity to improve the streetscape, to make this area something that is pedestrian friendly. So nobody wants to walk on the ped ways unless it's raining, and that's the only time anybody should be walking up there, because the street is such a great place to be. So let's look at our community with vision for the future. Let's look at the list as, as long as possible. I mean, make it as long as possible. Include as many amenities as we can that are going to improve the quality of life in the area where many of us work, where you all govern. And next door, where the police station and the parking garage is, is under consideration to change that into a new structure that would be the government center. It at one time was a gem of a union station that we as a community have been mourning ever since we lost it, but we can't control that. Let's look at what we can control, the properties we can improve, and put every effort in to improve those properties. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Mallard. Next, I have Timothy Price, and following that, uh, Charlie Moore. Mr. Price, you'll have three minutes. If we could get your home address please. Thank you. My name is Timothy D. Price. I live at 129 Saint William here in Lexington, Kentucky. First of all, I wanna thank, uh, the council for the, uh, thought and effort that you've taken in consideration of moving this TIF forward, uh, TIF project forward. And, uh, I appreciate the due diligence, uh, that you're exercising in considering this TIF project. It's very important for Lexington. Uh, that being said, I want to say that I support the, uh, CenterPoint project and the application of the TIF to CenterPoint, and I would urge the council to support the TIF resolution. Couple of reasons. You know, I'm gonna mention some things that, uh, you know, you're intimately familiar with and I've heard, um, mentioned here by the council, uh, but I'd like to share with you, uh, my view, uh, as a member of the community. Uh, first of all, um, I think that the city has an incredible opportunity to utilize TIF funds to improve the downtown area. And there are two major points that I wanna talk about in this respect. First of all, uh, I'll call it courthouse improvement, but I, I understand it's the Lexington History Museum, but, um, I, you know, there have been issues with regard to the CenterPoint development, uh, as to whether, uh, some of the buildings that were, uh, taken down were historical or not, or just old. And, and I understand the, uh, the thought process on that, but I think with this project and supporting the TIF going forward, you have an opportunity to invest a substantial amount of money toward the improvement of a clearly historical building, uh, that being the old courthouse, and I would urge you to do that. Uh, the second thing is, uh, with regard to parking structures and, uh, pedestrian walkways, the parking structure, uh, some would say is not needed at this point, some would say that, uh, there's sufficient parking downtown and they would argue against that. And I'm going to tell you that the parking structure that would come along with this project, looking forward toward the progress of Lexington, uh, would be very beneficial as Lexington continues to grow as a community. So the parking structure isn't just about now, it's about moving forward. The other thing, and, and I know I'm s-, you know, singing to the choir here, with regard to the pedestrian walkways, is that I work downtown and I enjoy the use of the pedestrian walkways during inclement weather, uh, during times where it's cold, windy, et cetera. Uh, it helps, uh, especially in the wintertime, if there's ice on the ground, you avoid that, and other safety issues, uh, that become involved with regard to traffic. You're walking through the pedestrian walkway, you don't have to worry about somebody running a red light. And I know that, uh, Vice Mayor Gray, uh, one of the hats that I wear is a, uh, traffic school instructor, and I know that, uh, uh, he would agree with me that, uh, walkways would improve traffic safety. Uh, that's all I have to say, and again, I urge you to, um, vote in favor of the resolution. Thank you very much , Mr. Price. Mr. Moore, and following Mr. Moore we'll have, uh, Renee Jackson, if you'd come around. Good evening. I'm Charlie Moore. I reside at 829 Shenoy Road. I appreciate the opportunity to speak here tonight. Got some prepared comments, so I hope I don't overrun the rabbit here. Um- Madam Clerk. I oughta get to a correct page. Useless. I am here tonight to enthusiastically support the CenterPoint project and the use of the tax increment funding. Firstly, CenterPoint will be the economic driver for downtown Lexington as Lexington moves forward through the 21st century. The much needed four star JW Marriott Hotel will be the primary catalyst. It will provide needed support for the convention business for the city owned Lexington Civic Center. It will enable the Lexington CentreCorp to go after bigger and better conventions. These conventions are extremely important to Lexington's growth and wellbeing, as companies and individuals can be enticed to expand or relocate here. The horse business is in need of the quality hotel that this is, as does the horse... as does the financial business, healthcare and legal and tourism businesses. There have been, I think, unfortunate criticisms of the condominiums in regards to their price and because of the current real estate market. First, comparing the current stock of condominiums to these is unfair, as it is similar to comparing apples to oranges. Every new condo project in downtown is a wonderful project, no doubt about that. However, the condos in this building start on the 15th floor, and they rise to the 35th. ... Combine that vertical-- verticality and the views that they will provide with the unrivaled security and the full use of all hotel services, and frankly, they are two different products and that makes these worth premium. Regarding the current real estate market, I've never seen or heard of a downturn in the real estate and financial markets, as we have experienced this week, that didn't bounce back with great vigor. I anticipate by the time this building is completed, we will be well on our way. Which brings us to the tax increment funding, a marvelous tool which the city should use in as many possible and creative ways as the citizens and council see fit. I am not going to endorse preferences for projects, other than to say the Herald-Leader has it dead wrong this morning regarding the parking. To encourage people to drive around, searching for a spot, is not exactly environmentally friendly. The beauty of the proposed underground garage is, by being in the center of downtown, you're within three or four blocks of wherever you're going. When it comes to taking this project to Frankfort, the- the state agency, I would think, now this may show my naivete, uh, that oversees this would be a help in this process and not a roadblock. After all, this is an economic development project and they are an economic development agency. In conclusion, I would like to commend the web companies for bringing this project forward. Their completed projects over the last 35-plus years in this city have a value in the hundreds of millions of dollars, which the city generates millions of dollars in property taxes, as well as the buffet line of taxes the businesses that occupy these buildings pay. Thus, directly and indirectly, there's probably been no more significant contributor- Mr. Moore, your time has expired. If you can wrap it up real quickly. Yes, sir. I'm- I'm right at the end here. Um, ... contributor, at least from the private sector, to the financial health and wellbeing of Lexington. Let's embrace them, CenterPoint, future infill projects, and TIF projects as we embark forward into the 21st century. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Jackson. And following that, Mr. Marr, I understand Ms. Bayer wishes to yield her time to you. Is that correct? I think he's speaking, Don. It's not about, it's a resolution about some point later on tonight- Sure, certainly. Is Mr. Clark here, Jim Clark? He's here. All right. Ms. Cla- uh, Ms. Uh, Jackson. Renee Jackson, 743 Zandelle Drive, representing the Downtown Lexington Corporation. Thank you for, um, hearing from all of us tonight. And I- I want to speak about amenities. Jay hit it, as far as I'm concerned and- and what we focus on. And the Lexington History Center is arguably one of the most recognizable symbols of our city. And if you go just north to Paris, you can see what that could potentially be if you did rehab it. And I know there's been some research done on how much money that would cost, and I believe it's close to $15 million. And I don't foresee, unless some very generous person comes out, that the city is gonna have that kind of revenue to invest in some of our amenities like that. And Cheapside Park is another amenity that's included in this development plan, and we would love to see that look nicer. Um, the sidewalks, that was one of the first things I noticed when I took my job. There are 15 different pavement types from where my old office was, at 145 West Main Street, to Commerce Lexington. And that just- that's not the way it is when you go to other places. And this gives us an opportunity, it's a tool in our tool chest, to make improvements. And I would implore you to seize that opportunity. From what we've heard from Commissioner Askew, there's no risk to this council. If we issue bonds, we're not liable as taxpayers. And if we don't issue bonds, we wait for that revenue to come in. We're not liable. So again, what is the risk? And if you vote now, it sends a message to Frankfort, when it ultimately does go to Frankfort, that we're not united. I had a discussion with Andrea, or Commissioner, I mean Councilmember James, about the fact that this resolution isn't necessarily necessary, but I was confused about that, so I know the public has to be confused. So when you vote no, it sends a message. And we would just ask that you vote in favor and let the process proceed with the public hearing and then ultimately the ordinance, and you can take out things later. Um, so again, from the Downtown Lexington Corporation standpoint, we wholeheartedly support TIF financing for this project, the Distillery District, or any time that it's feasible to use. Thank you. Thank you very much. Does anyone else from the public wish to address the council with regard to Resolution 25? Madam Clerk. Resolution Number 25, a resolution directing the preparation of a development plan for the Phoenix Park Courthouse development area, which includes all recommendations of the delegation established pursuant to Resolution Number 434-2008 and scheduling a public hearing thereon on October 14, 2008 at 6:00 PM. 26, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County government to execute a special warranty deed conveying a certain tract or parcel of land known as the Julia R. Ewen Elementary School property to the Board of Education of Fayette County, Kentucky, in consideration of the payment in full of sc- ... of school building revenue bonds issued by the Irvin County government for the construction of improvements to said property. 27, a resolution specifying the intention of the Irvin County Council to expand and extend partial urban services district number three to provide garbage and refuse collection, finding a need for the service in the area included, finding the ability of the Irvin County government to provide this service in this area, which areas defined as certain properties on the following streets, Sharkey Property Unit 2C, Section 1, Townley Park, Lexontonian Estate Section 2, Winners Circle, Sharkey Property Unit 2C, Section 2, Town Square Park, Lochmere Estates, Maple Bridge Unit 1A, Lochmere Loop, Lochmere Place, Higbee Mill Reserve, Reserve Road, Lis- Lexontonian Estate Section 1, Versailles Road, Winners Circle, Richmond Woods, Todds Road, New Town Springs Unit 1, Lot 9, Russell Springs Drive, New Town Springs Drive, Hamburg Place, Farm B6B Area, War Admiral D- Way. And number 28, a resolutions specifying the intention of the Irvin County Council to expand and extend the full urban services district to provide street lighting, street cleaning, and garbage and refuse collection. Finding a need for this services in the area included, finding the ability of the Irvin County government to provide these services in this area, which area is defined as certain properties on the following streets, Johnson Property Unit 1I- Unit 1I Burgess Avenue, Milbank Road, McCullough Drive, Johnson Property Unit 1H, Milbank Road, McCullough Drive, Ramsey Sullivan Property Unit 2A, Sullivan's Trace, Cherry Blossom Way, Blackford Property, Phase 3 Unit 1D, Blackford Pro- Parkway, Masterson Hills Unit 1AR, Tibbs Trail, Chesapeake Equine, Greendale Road, Rit Station Subdivision, Lakeland Avenue, Mulligan Sh- Property, Shady Hills, Treeline, Way, Clark Property Unit 1L, Icehouse Way, Sharkey Property Unit 3, Section 1, Town Center Drive, Town Square Park, Guest Property Unit pa- 5C, Section 1, Honeycomb Trail, Guest Property Unit 4H, Section 1, Jewett Creek Drive, Tuscany Unit 4C, Summerfield Battery Street, Blackford Property Ba- Phase 3, Unit 1C, Blackford Parkway, Dire Crow, Flint Cove, Clark Property Unit 1H, Icehouse Way, Clark Property Unit 1I, Ar- Orchard Grass Road, Clar- Clark Property Unit 1J, Tollgate Road, Orchard Grass Road, Ramsey Sullivan Property Unit 3, Lot 3, Section 2, Kitten Joy Circle, Meadowsweet Lane, Kearney Ridge Boulevard, Tuscany Unit 4B, Summerfield Patchen Wilkes Drive, Sandhurst Cove, Johnson Property Unit 1M, Millbank Road, Elvertone Road, Johnson Property Unit 1N, Section 1 Elvertone Court, Elvertone Road, Meyers Property Unit 1C, Field Rush Road, Meyers Property Unit 1B, Field Rush Road, Calent- Calendula Road, Crocus Court, Meyers Property Unit 1A, Calendula Road, Field Rush Road, Servicebury Drive, Tuscany Unit 4A, Summerfield Patchen Wilks Drive, Clark Property Unit 1F, Polo Club Boulevard, Pokeberry Park, Owlshead Lane, Fortune Business Center Unit 1, Lot 11 Beasley Street, Clark Property Unit 1G, Polo Club Boulevard, Icehouse Way, Johnson Property Unit 1L, Section 1, and Millbank Road. That concludes the resolutions entitled to second reading. Is there a motion for their approval? Second. I have a motion by Council Member Meyers and a second by Council Member Gordon. Um, is there any further discussion? Council Member Henson? I need for you to turn your microphone- I got it. There we go. Sorry. Um, number 23, I need to recuse because I am an employee of Employment Solutions. Madam Clerk, if you'll note that recusal. Any further discussion? Um, it would probably be, uh, simpler to do it that way. Council Member Ellinger? Uh, Mayor, I'm just thinking we might wanna do 25 separately just to make it easier for the vote. Uh, I'll entertain that as a motion to- I- I move to do that. ... amend by dividing. Second. I have a motion and second to divide the question into, uh, item 25 and all other items. Any discussion? Those in favor of that amendment, please indicate by saying, "I." I. Those no? Motion carries. Therefore, we will first vote on all items other than resolution number 25. Madam Clerk, if you will set the machine. Those in favor, please vote, "I." Those opposed, vote "nay." The clerk will call the roll on a vote for all items other than item number 25. Mr. Blevins. I. Mr. Blues. Ms. Crosby. Yes. Mr. DeCamp. Yes. Mr. Ellinger. Yes. Ms. Gorton. I. Mr. Gray. I. Ms. Henson. Yes. Um, Ms. James. Yes. Mr. Lane. Yes. Mr. McCord. Yes. Mr. Meyers. Yes. Dr. Stephens. I. Mr. Stennet. I. And Mr. Beard. I. Thank you. Those resolutions are adopted. The matter of resolution number 25 is now on the floor for any further discussion. Seeing none, Madam Clerk, if you'll clear the machine, we'll, uh, ask council members to vote I if they are in favor of approving resolution 25. Vote nay if you are opposed, and please call the roll. Mr. Blevins. No. Mr. Blues. No. Miss Crosby. Yes. Mr. DeCamp. Yes. Mr. Ellinger. Yes. Ms. Gordon. No. No. Mr. Gray. No. Ms. Henson. Yes. Um, Ms. James. Yes. If you all would please reflect your vote on the screen too, tha- thank- thank you. Mr. Lane. Yes. Mr. McCord. Yes. Mr. Meyers. Yes. Dr. Stephens. Aye. Mr. Stinnett. Aye. And Mr. Beard. Aye. Thank you. Thank you very much. That resolution is adopted. Um, that takes us now down to resolutions and title to first reading. Madam Clerk. Resolution number 29. A resolution accepted in the bit of Payment Technology Incorporated in the amount of $150,500 for the asphalt service maintenance with asphalt rejuvenating agent for the Division of Streets, Roads, and Forestry. Number 30. A resolution accepting the bid of Kevin Barger Truck, establishing a price contract for utility body for the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management. 31. A resolution accepting the bids of Power Train of Kentucky, Superior Hose and Fittings Incorporated, I.B. Moore Company LLC, Car Par- Carquest Auto Parts, Fluid Power Products, Division of B.W. Rogers Company and Applied Industrial Technologies Incorporated, establishing a price contracts for hydraulic hose and fittings for the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management. 32. A resolution accepting the bid of J. Eniger and Son Incorporated, establishing a price contract for snow plow assemblies for the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management. Number 33. A resolution accepting the bid of Scodeller Construction Incorporated in the amount of $76,200 for the 2008 Crack Ceiling Project for the Division of Streets, Roads, and Forestry. Number 34. A resolution accepting the bid of Republic Diesel, establishing a price contract for salt spreader under tailgate for the Division of Fi- Facilities and Fleet Management. Number 35. A resolution accepting the bid of S&S Truck Tire Center and establishing a price contract for truck attire, retreading for the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management. Number 36. A resolution ratifying the probationary civil service appointments of Robert Beaumont, database administrator. Grade 117E 206408 bi-weekly in Division of Computer Services, effective September 29, 2008. Fra- Frank Mabson, staff assistant senior, grade 108N 11.540 hourly in the Division of Water Quality, effective September 15, 2008. Renew our goal. Administrative specialist senior grade 112N 17.028 hourly in the Division of Revenue, effective September 29, 2008. Ratifying the probationary sworn appointments of Mark Brown, fire captain, of grade 316N 21.497 hourly in the Division of Fire and Emergency Services, effective September 10, 2008. Chris Bartley, fire lieutenant grade 315N 16.261 hourly in the Division of Fire and Emergency Services, effective September 10, 2008. Number 37. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute and submit an amended bid to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for conveyance of 10 acres of surplus federal government property in Leestown Road in consideration of construction of a fire station to provide any additional information requested in connection with this amended bid, and further authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute the certificate of consideration and to accept a deed from the federal government of the s- for the surplus property and amending resolution number 757-2006 accordingly. Number 39. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a federal-wide assurance for the protection of human subjects for institutions within the United States and IRB authorization agreement and any other necessary agreements or documents for participation by the Division of Fire and Emergency Services in the rapid anticonvulsant medication prior to arrival time at no cost to the Urban County Government. Number 40. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an amendment to the agreement with ICMA Retirement Corporation to amend the retirement plan to permit loans for employee 457 deferred compensation plans at no cost to the Urban County Government. Number 41. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with Volunteers of America, Kentucky Incorporated for support of emergency housing for homeless families at a cost not to exceed $8,000. Number 42. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a memorandum of understanding with the University of Kentucky College of Design, D- Department of Historic Preservation for completion of an historic American building survey of two structures located at 898 Georgetown Street in return for a donation of $12,500 to support future student projects and activities. 43. A resolution authorizing and directing the Department of Law on behalf of the Urban County Government to accept a deed from Lynn W. Lynn D. Williams and James R. Williams and Ball Homes LLC for a temporary construction easement and a permanent sanitary sewer easement at 4037 Whitewater Drive, and a deed from Robert Murray and Donna Murray and Ball Homes LLC for a temporary construction easement and a temp- permanent sanitary sewer easement at 4041 Whitewater Drive, and authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a deeds of easement to certify the consideration at no cost to the Urban County Government. And number 44. A resolution authorizing the Division of Human Resources to internally advertise for a social worker senior position in the Department of Social Services. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Are there any motions? All right. Council Member James. I make a motion, Mayor, to suspend the rules and give second reading to number 42 per the request of administration. Um, this has to do with a fall semester project and the preparati- yeah, jumped ahead. Okay. There's a walk on resolution. Could we take that before we do the suspensions? That way that could all be inclusive, please. Certainly. Good suggestion. I'll hold. There's no... Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. I move to place on the docket a resolution directing the preparation of a development plan for the Lexington Distillery District and scheduling a public hearing thereon for October 21st, 2008. So moved. Second. Have a motion and second to add that item to the, uh, docket for first reading. Any discussion? Council Member Blevins. I just have a question about the financial aspects. Are we still using Mr. Parsons for this work? And if so, what budget is his fee coming out of? Uh, we are still using him. That much I can answer. I'll have to get s- some input from, uh- I'm sorry, Mr. Lane. Lane Consulting is going to pick up that tab. Is that what I heard? Second. Mr. Askew, who's paying for this? I thought you just made a motion, Council Member Blevins. I did not. Mayor, there had been some discussion after Mr. Parsons was hired to, uh, split the cost, uh, of that fee between the law department's professional services budget, and also, the economic, uh, development task force budget, the 50,000, the council reserved. It's my understanding that the council wanted to discuss that, the economic development task force. So we are... The law department will go ahead and pay that out of a professional services budget until the task force decides whether they want to go ahead and split that cost. But he has been paid. Ma- Mayor, today during our economic task force, uh, meeting, Commissioner Askew, we voted not to split it with ya, so um... I apologize you didn't get the memo, but uh... We'll have a budget amendment in due time for- No- ... professional services- No, actually, that's been discu- that's not... That's, that's fine. That's fine. Thank you. Before you go, Logan, how much... Do you have any idea what this is going to cost us? I don't. I can tell you the last bill, which was for, I believe, through the end of August, was about $10,000. That's my recollection. Now I can... If you all are interested, I can send that to you. That's my recollection. That's sufficient for tonight. Thanks. Mm-hmm. All right. Um, the, the question on the floor right now is on the addition to the docket of a, um, resolution brought forward by Council Member Blues. Is there any further discussion on that issue? Mayor. Council Member Crosby. Can we just... Can we just confirm the time, Dr. Blaze? What time did you say on the 21st, please? All right. Anything further? Then those- Yeah, it's 6:00 PM. Those, those in favor- Mayor, Mayor, I suppose so. Council Member Jane. Yeah. Again, I'd just like to say y- we may want to, as a council, establish some type of process if we're going to bring things forward that don't have to do with what's required for the TIF. Again, we're bringing forward a resolution that's not part of what... For the state TIF that we must do, and I will not be able to support this resolution. Thank you. All right. Those in... If there's nothing further, those in favor of adding, um, item number 45, which is a resolution directing the preparation of a development plan for the distillery district and scheduling a public hearing, let a been... Council Member Ellick. Is it a public hearing or public meeting? Hearing. Hearing? So what's the difference in the ramifications on that? I know we changed that way back. Is there any difference now or not? I don't think we've changed it. We offered to change it at one point, but we never got a response to change it. So the difference is still the same. And w- could you make that distinction then, between the two? I could a couple years ago. Exactly. I b- I believe in the public meeting, um, you hear from the public regarding their views on a subject matter. In a public hearing, you actually can take evidence and testimony. So is one a, a require a quorum, and the other one does not? 'Cause I think that's what we were trying to make sure, that we did not, um, not be able to hold it 'cause we didn't have enough people at one time. This is a statutory requirement. Right. The public, the public hearing... And, and Mr. Sander is correct. In a lot of instances, for instance, when you have a public hearing on a zone change, you are considering evidence that... On which you make your decision. But the big difference is in the advertising. And when you advertise a public hearing, there are statutory requirements. Uh, I believe, Ms. Lamb, it's no less than seven days, no more than 21. And in this particular case, there are, um, some additional requirements in terms of what has to be in the notice. So it's not just saying we're going to have a public hearing on this date and this time. There's some... Thi- this notice is a little more detailed, and Mr. Parsons is going to need to help us with that. Do you have to have a quorum at a public hearing? I don't believe that you do. In fact, there was some discussion at the TIF delegation that you don't necessarily have to do it at a council meeting at all. Okay, thank you. All right. All right, Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. I guess I, I have a question of why it is that this needs to be walked on this evening. Coun- Council Member Blues. In our... Uh, Council Member Myers, in our, in our TIF meeting, we were working out a, uh, a schedule so that we could, uh, have the first reading tonight, the second reading at, at our next... Uh. ... council meeting on October 2nd, and that would give ample time for the seven-day, uh, notice in advance of a public hearing sc- w- which would be scheduled for the 21st. But, it's just strange to me, one, that we're walking this on, but also that you're walking it on without the TIFF delegation reporting out to the full council. Council Member Blues, if I, might... I was at that meeting, and I believe it was the sense of the TIFF delegation, because everybody was pulling out dates of meetings and trying to figure out how to make all of this fit, not just with the Distillery District, but also the Center Point development with existing meetings, so we didn't have to schedule spe- special meetings. Um, so I believe the TIFF delegation, I don't, I can't recall whether we actually voted, but- W- we did. You did vote- We did. ... to go ahead and try to get this ready for tonight. There was a motion to recommend the adoption of the resolution by the council, and that- Yeah. ... that was approved unanimously, as I recall. The difference between, the difference, so you all will know, one of the big differences between the resolution on Distillery District and the resolution on Center Point is there is no language that says that this development plan for the Distillery District will include all the recommendations of the TIFF delegation. Okay. All right. Council Member Minors? Thank you, Mayor. Council Member McCord? Thank you, Mayor. And, and I just wanted to explain my, my vote is gonna be no, and it's not because I don't support this 100%. Uh, in fact, I think it's one of the best things that's, uh, and most visionary things that's happened to our city is the fact that we've sat here and argued and argued for however many months about process and so forth, and then we, we walk this on tonight. And so I think, again, it kinda flies in the face of all that's been said earlier and, and shows somewhat of a bias, but it may be, uh, put in, in the framework of, well, we're, we're figuring out our process, but again, I, I think it just points to the whole of, of, uh, one project versus another, and, and, uh, I fully support and fully tend to support, uh, TIFF for, for the Distillery Dist- District, but I'm not gonna support this motion tonight. Council Member Beard? Well, I just wanted to say that, uh, y- you're very correct, uh, Council Member McCord. Uh, we are picking our way through, uh, a process. Uh, not all TIFFs are the same. For instance, uh, uh, this is more for a blighted area, and it has different requirements than the signature TIFF, which is the, uh, Center Point TIFF. And, uh, it's gonna be very difficult to, to come up with a process th- that's gonna fit all of them, and, uh, uh, and I would guess in all probability, we aren't going to have eight or 10 or 12 of them that we're going to, uh, have, have to have a, uh, a, a very detailed process. Uh, the process in and of itself is the fact that, uh, the delegation exists, and, uh, uh, has been working, uh, diligently. I say that because I'm on the I'm on the delegation. Uh, just wanted the public to know . Uh, anyway, uh, it, um... You know, the ti- the timelines that we're dealing with, um, w- with the, uh, the lead times necessary to, to advertise and, um, uh, the fact that we, we go on a break dur- during December and, and all the various assembly things, uh, that could happen in, in relationship to, uh, uh, everybody showing up in Frankfurt, uh, uh, about the third of January, and what might happen, uh, uh, either with TIFFs in general or, or more specifically and, uh, and changes, and we might have to alter our paths. Uh, we wanna get everything there, and, uh, let them have an opportunity to, to chew on it, uh, a little before, uh, um, things might get changed. So that's why, uh, that's why it's being walked on, and, uh, um, hopefully, um, everyone will support it as I will. Thank you. Council Member Lane. Uh, thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to recuse myself on this, um, item, because our, my real estate company is providing, uh, consulting services to the Distillery District. Thank you very much. Madam Clerk, if you'll note that. All right. Any further discussion? Then the question is whether we wish to add an item number 45 to the, uh, docket, which will be a resolution directing the preparation of a development plan for the Distillery District and scheduling a public hearing. All those in favor of adding that item to the docket, please indicate by saying "Aye." Aye. Opposed, no. No. All right. Let's have a show of hands, if we could please, or a vote on the department, use the system. Those in favor of, uh, the resolution, please indicate by voting aye. Those opposed vote nay. You'll have to do recuse, I guess, because I... All right. It now appears we have a vote of 10 to 4 in favor of adding that item, so the motion carries. Madam Clerk, if you'll give first reading to that item. A resolution directing the preparation of a development plan for the Lexington Distillery District, and scheduling a public hearing thereon on October 21st, 2008 at 6:00 PM. Thank you very much. Now, back to where we were a few minutes ago. I think Council Member James had a -- had an item, ah. Um, yes, Mayor. On item number 42, I would move to suspend, um, suspend the rules and give second reading, um, at the request of administration. It has to do with this is a fall semester project, um, and the students need to begin work on that. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Have a second by Council Member Ellinger. Are there others that we can add on to this one motion? Council Member Wayne. Ah, thank you, Mayor. I'd like to, ah, suspend the rules to get a second vote on item number 37. And this is the property being conveyed to the Irwin County Government at no cost, and, and, uh, the General Service Administration is asking for us to expedite this matter. Thank you. Others? All right. Then we have council- Council Member Crosby. I request so, to get a second reading on number 36, please. Any others? 36, 37, and 42 are the ones that I have indicated at present. Oh, uh, he was -- that was on for first reading only tonight. All right, so the motion is to suspend the rules to give second reading to items 36, 37, and 42. All in favor, please indicate by saying, "Aye." Aye. Opposed, "No." No. Those -- all, all of those items, then are given second readings, so Madam Clerk, please, uh, proceed. Resolution number 36 for second reading. A resolution ratifying the probationary civil service appointments of Robert Bowman, database administrator, grade 117E 206408 biweekly in the Division of Computer Services effective September 29th, 2008. Frank Mapson, staff assistant senior, grade 108N 11.540 hourly in the Division of Water Quality, effective September 15, 2008. Ranu Argwal, administrative specialist senior, grade 112N 17.028 hourly in the Division of Revenue, effective September 29, 2008. Ratifying the probationary sworn appointments of Mark Brown, fire c- captain, grade 316N 24.497 hourly in the Division of Fire and Emergency Services, effective September 10, 2008. Chris Bartley, fire lieutenant, grade 315N 16.261 hourly in the Division of Fire and Emergency Services, effective September 10, 2008. Number 37, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irwin County Government to execute and submit an amended bid to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for conveyance of 10 acres of surplus federal government property on Leestown Road in consideration of a construction of a fire station to provide any additional information requested in connection with this amended bid, and further authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irwin County Government to execute a certificate of consideration, and to accept a deed from the federal government for the supla- surplus plu- property and amending resolution number 757-2006 accordingly. And number 42, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irwin County Government to execute a memorandum of understanding with the University of Kentucky College of Design, Department of Historic Preservation for completion of an historic American building survey of two structures located at 898 Georgetown Street in return for a donation of 12,500 to support future student projects and activities. Thank you very much. Is there a motion to approve those items? Move to approve. Second. Council Member Ellinger's moved the approval. Council Member Crosby has seconded the motion. Any discussion? Seeing none, we'll proceed to vote. Those in favor, please vote aye electronically. Those opposed vote nay. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Mr. Blevins. Aye. Mr. Blues. Yeah. Miss Crosby. Yeah. Mr. Decamp. Yeah. Mr. Ellinger. Yeah. Miss Gorton. Aye. Mr. Gray. Miss Henson. Yes. Miss James. Yes. Mr. Lane. Yes. Mr. McCord. Yes. Mr. Meyers. Yes. Dr. Stevens. Aye. Mr. Stennett and Mr. Beard. Aye. Thank you. Thank you. Those resolutions are approved. The next item on the agenda are announcements. Does any council member... Please, Mayor. Council Member Ellinger. I'll keep it short. I've, I've had a few things tonight, and I'll keep this short, but this is something, kind of something special and dear to my heart. On Saturday is the Juvenile Diabetes Walk, and my sister's been now a juvenile diabetic for going on 40 years as of High- um, Halloween this year. So it'll be at Jacobson Park. The walk, uh, registration starts at eight o'clock, and the walk itself starts at 10 o'clock. And you can go online if you'd like to for www.jdrf.com to look up any of the specifics. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Any other announcements? Seeing none, we'll proceed to public comment. I have, uh, I believe two people who've indicated a desire to speak tonight. Mr. McCarthy, if you'd step forward. You'll have three minutes. Okay, for the record, my name is Bernard McCarthy. My address is 515 Harry Street. I wanna point out that I happen to have a pickup truck, a bicycle, and two feet, and I use all three of those things. And I might even set foot on Lex Tran if it snows more than axle deep on the pickup truck one, one of these winters. But I wanna say, first of all, I think ped ways are a good thing, no matter what any architect tells you. But the main thing I wanted to ask for is that you modify all of the traffic-actuated stoplights around the city to enable them to detect bicycles, not just cars and pedestrians. First, and if you happen to pull up, if I'm on the bike one day and you pull up behind me in a car and I motion for you to come closer, I'm not being suicidal. I'm asking for help triggering the stoplight, because I don't have enough metal with me to do it. Second thing that I think should be added to all the stoplights around the city, whether traffic actuated or fixed time, would be glare-blocking plates. In other words, put a large black metal rectangle on the back of every stoplight that would extend some distance outward beyond the light itself, so that when the sun happens to be directly behind the stoplight, we want people, whether they're on foot or on bicycle or driving cars and trucks, to be able to see whether the light is red or green and not have the sun blinding them. This was a factor in at least one accident, one fatal accident involving a certain ice truck sometime back on New Circle, and I've noticed tonight that not only is it a problem when you're going toward the sun, when I was away from the sun earlier this evening, but had the sun reflecting off one of these downtown glass buildings, it was still in my eyes when I was looking, trying to look at the stoplights. I, I think some of these things could save a lot of people's lives and prevent a lot of accidents if we would adopt a few of these. Thank you very much, Mr. McCarthy. Mayor Rigger, in response to that, is there, which division of government would need to take a look at, um, the signaling that has to do with what, um, Mr. McCarthy was speaking on as far as the bicycles at the lights? I've heard that several times and I'm wondering if we can look at that. Traffic Engineering. 'Kay. We see that Commissioner can refer that to the correct- I don't see, uh, Commissioner Webb, if you would broach that issue with Mr. Harrington and the rest of the folks. Y- you don't have to come forward unless you have something additional to say, but if you can just follow up with me, maybe later. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Thanks, Mayor. Next, I have Mr. Moore, who Ms. Bauer, I understand, has yielded her time to you, so you'll have six minutes. Eric Patrick Moore, 4165 Hartwood Road. Uh, thanks, Jessica, for your time again. I appreciate that. Uh, I didn't wanna speak regarding the TIFF resolution exact, uh, technically because I definitely agree, you should go ahead, if CenterPoint's gonna happen, then obviously you wanna capture your state revenues. I think that's pretty simple. The point I wanna make is that we have an empty block downtown right now. That's an incredible moment in our hi- in our city's life. I want... I don't go to church, but there's a scripture that people quote sometimes when somebody says, "People, uh, swat at gnats but swallow a camel." It seems like if Google was coming downtown and employing 2,000 people getting paid maybe 80, $100,000 a year, with your tax structure, with 83% of your revenues coming from th- the, um, local payroll tax, then your police officers would get higher salaries, maybe your better parks, the LFUG- LFUCG staffers who wanted more than 2.3% raise, they would have more money, if things were thought about more of a holistic approach. And it seems as if that's government's job. Maybe it's not the Webb's job, and I understand that, but it, it's gotta be somebody's job to look out for the overall betterment of the city. And it's been said by Mayor Newberry that in the middle of the season, you can't change the rules. And I see that point, but I would argue that actually Major League Baseball, the NBA, and NASCAR actually have a precedence where they actually just implemented instant replay in Major League Baseball effective now. The NBA changed balls from leather to synthetic. They changed it back in the middle of the season. NASCAR changes rules on a weekly basis. So there is, if you wanna use a sports metaphor, there is actually a lot of precedents for changing the rules, because the commissioner gets paid to look out for what's in the best interest of that sport. It is somebody's job somewhere in government to look out for what's in the best interest of Lexington. And it seems to me that a hotel with a housekeeping job does not quite the best interest compared to a great company like Google or Altec, who happens to be across county lines with their occupational taxes not coming to Lexington. So it just, there's a, uh, I get scattered sometimes 'cause there's so many things to talk about with this issue. Seth Godin, who wrote the book The Dip, maybe you've heard of him, bald-headed guy from, I think he's from New York somewhere, he, he wrote a book called The Dip, and he talks about the difference between being number one and being average. He, uh, he actually, the exact quote in his book was, "Being number one is very underrated." And then he uses the example of Tiger Woods' salary and income compared to the average PGA player's income. The, the amount is enormous. Just imagine the possibilities of that city block being developed into this iconic thing that could be, that could put Lexington on the map around the world for anything, any possibility, not simply something good enough, but something great. Imagine the possibilities that we have right in front of us that- ... are not gonna be just around in 2010 for the World Equestrian Games, which is a great thing to have, of course, obviously. We're talking about the next 100 years. Imagine something fantastic that could be built on something right in front of us. All of my peers are- are gone. I- I don't have any friends to bring, because they live in Louisville, Cincinnati, Chicago, Seattle, Boston, Tampa, Hong Kong, Sydney, Australia. Hotels aren't gonna bring 'em back. In my work, I work with Chris Kimmel of the Idea Festival. The Idea Festival was not accepted by Lexington. However, Duke University welcomes him. Southern California welcomes him. But my Lexington seems to find that our councilman's daughter can compete globally in a hotel. I'm embarrassed by that, to be honest. That type of thinking that has always been in Lexington, in my city, which is why your great doctors, your great PhDs, MDs, your dual degree holders all leave. And I do get passionate and I'm sorry. Well, I'm not sorry, but I- I know it's not the forum to be passionate. But it's extremely important to be great, the dollar amount, the cultural, the- the things that you do to people, business owners that have small businesses around town that the Economic Development Task Force talked about today. If you have a great economic engine that's employing 2,000 people downtown, $100,000 a year maybe to design the next invention like the internet, bring that to Lexington, downtown. And all the culture and all the employees and all the families that are there, and then the small businesses, your restaurants, your retail, then they can all spawn off because of that. But instead, we focus on something that is obviously proven not to work in Lexington, making it great. There are no numbers to substantiate that this hotel will make us great. Yes, it's something. I never heard of the Dame before. My friends never heard of the Dame or all those buildings. But at the same time, we're not coming back for a hotel. We're not coming back for something. We don't go to Detroit because they have a hall- a- a tall hotel. I think I have one more minute left, so I want to make sure I can say everything. That's it. Thank you very much. Um, does anyone else wish to address the Council? I think Commissioner Askew has one other matter for our consideration this evening. Mayor, it's my understanding that we need to go into a brief closed session, uh, for del- deliberations on the future acquisition of real property by LFUCG. Uh, the publicity, uh, would likely affect the value of specific property, uh, if conducted in open session. And that is under KRS 61.810(1). I- Is there a motion to go into closed session? So moved. Councilmember Crosby has moved to go into closed session under those provisions of the Open Meetings Act. Councilmember Lane has seconded. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no? Motion carries.